Logical  v^&y 


BX    9183     .S5 

Shedd,  William  Greenough 

Thayer,  1820-1894. 

Calvinism 


CALVINISM:  PURE  AND  MIXED 

A   DEFENCE 


OP  THE 


WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS 


WILLIAM  G.  T.  SHEDD,  D.D. 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 

1893 


CorYRIGHT,  1893,  BY 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


PREFACE 


The  object  of  this  work  is  to  define  and  defend  the 
tenets  of  Calvinism  in  their  original  purity  and  self-con- 
sistence, as  distinguished  from  proposed  modifications  of 
them  for  the  purpose  of  an  alleged  improvement.  It  has 
grown  out  of  the  proposal  introduced  into  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  Church,  to  revise  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards. It  contains  the  substance  of  a  pamphlet  which  the 
author  published  in  opposition  to  this  proposal  when  it 
was  first  made,  together  with  discussions  of  several  im- 
portant subjects  that  have  subsequently  come  up  for  ex- 
amination during  the  controversy  in  the  Church.  Of 
these,  pretention,  common  and  special  grace,  original  sin, 
infant  salvation,  the  "  larger  hope,"  and  the  inerrancy  of 
Scripture,  are  the  most  prominent.  The  controversy 
has  disclosed  the  fact,  that  some  Presbyterians  deny  that 
God  may  justly  pass  by  any  of  mankind  in  the  bestow- 
ment  of  saving  grace  ;  and  assert  that  common  grace  may 
become  saving  grace  by  the  sinner's  co-operation,  that 
original  sin  is  not  deserving  of  eternal  death  and  there- 
fore that  infants  are  not  liable  to  it,  that  the  West- 
minster Standards  teach  that  all  the  heathen  are  lost, 
and  that  the  autographs  of  the  inspired  writers  contained 
more  or  less  of  error.  The  writer  endeavors  to  show 
that  the  first  opinion  is  fatal  to  the  doctrine  of  Divine 
sovereignty  in  election  ;  that  the  second  is  Arminian  syn- 


IV  PREFACE 

ergism,  not  Calvinistic  monergism ;  that  the  third  de- 
stroys the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation,  by  making  it  only 
a  quasi-salvation  and  a  matter  of  obligation  on  the  part  of 
God  ;  and  that  the  fourth  and  fifth  are  misstatements  of 
the  contents  of  the  Confession. 

When  the  revision  of  the  Standards  was  first  suggested 
by  a  few  presbyteries,  the  great  majority  of  the  denomina- 
tion had  expressed  no  desire  for  it,  and  the  measure  seemed 
to  be  the  scheme  of  only  a  dissatisfied  few.  But  it  soon 
appeared  that  such  dissatisfaction  with  the  denomina- 
tional creed  was  considerably  widespread.  The  presby- 
teries voted  to  revise  their  creed  by  a  decisive  majority. 
This  majority  soon  showed  itself  to  be  composed  of  a  con- 
servative and  a  radical  wing.  The  former  have  endeav- 
ored to  revise  in  conformity  with  the  vote  of  the  General 
Assembly,  that  no  changes  shall  be  made  that  impair  the 
integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system.  The  latter  have  pro- 
posed alterations,  relating  principally  to  the  doctrines  of 
election  and  pretention,  which,  the  writer  endeavors  to 
prove,  seriously  impair  it. 

The  history  of  the  revision  movement,  thus  far,  con- 
firms the  author  in  his  opinion,  expressed  at  the  very  first, 
that  the  revision  of  a  creed  is  latitudinarian  in  its  nature 
and  influence.  The  proposal  to  revise  a  creed  is  commonly 
made,  not  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  its  strictness,  and 
still  less  to  make  it  stricter,  but  in  order  to  make  it 
looser  or  more  "  liberal,"  as  the  phrase  is.  This  explains 
the  fact,  that  there  has  never  been  a  revision  of  any  of 
the  great  creeds  of  Christendom.  When  latitudinarian 
parties  have  arisen  in  the  Church,  and  have  attempted  to 
change  the  received  symbols,  the  result  has  been  that  new 
creeds  were  formed  for  the  new  parties,  and  the  old  re- 
mained unaltered.  The  Semi-Arians  and  Arians  could 
not  induce  the  Ancient   Church  to  revise  the  Apostles', 


PREFACE  V 

Nicene,  and  Constantinopolitan  creeds,  in  accordance  with 
their  views  of  an  improved  Trinitarianism.  The  Middle 
Ages  witnessed  no  attempts  to  revise  the  great  oecumen- 
ical symbols.  None  of  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation, 
Lutheran  or  Calvinistic,  have  been  revised.  The  only 
examples  that  border  on  revision  are  the  Augsburg  Var- 
iata  and  the  Formula  Concordise.  The  first  was  only  the 
individual  work  of  Melanchthon,  who  wished  to  introduce 
synergism  into  the  Lutheran  monergism,  and  not  that  of  a 
church  demanding  it ;  and  the  last  claimed  to  be,  and  ac- 
tually was,  a  closely  reasoned  and  logical  development  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession — the  only  instance  that  we  recall 
in  which  revision  resulted  in  a  stricter  orthodoxy.  The 
reduction  of  the  Forty- two  Articles  of  Edward  the  Sixth 
to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  Elizabeth,  cannot  be  called 
a  revision.  The  attempt  of  the  Remonstrants  to  Armini- 
anize  the  Heidelberg  and  Belgic  Confessions  was  a  fail- 
ure, and  resulted  in  the  Five  Articles  of  the  new  creed. 

These  facts  go  to  show  that  revision,  speaking  generally, 
means  the  alteration  of  doctrinal  statements  by  injecting 
into  them  more  or  less  of  foreign  elements  not  properly 
belonging  to  them,  in  order  to  meet  a  change  of  views  in 
a  larger  or  smaller  part  of  the  denomination.  BjT  this 
method,  Calvinism,  or  Arminianism,  or  Socinianism,  or 
any  creed  whatever,  becomes  mixed  instead  of  pure;  a 
combination  of  dissimilar  materials,  instead  of  a  simple 
uncompounded  unity.  This  is  the  destruction  of  that  self- 
consistence  which  is  the  necessary  constituent  of  true 
science,  and  indispensable  to  permanent  power  and  in- 
fluence. The  purest  and  most  unmixed  Socinianism,  Ar- 
minianism, Lutheranism,  or  Calvinism,  is  the  strongest  in 
the  long  run. 

While  the  author  contends  that  such  is  the  nature  and 
tendency  of  creed-revision,  he  believes  that  many  of  those 


vi  PREFACE 

who  are  advocating  a  revision  of  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards have  no  desire  to  weaken  their  statements  or  their 
influence.  The  distinction  between  doctrines  and  per- 
sons, projects  and  their  advocates,  is  a  valid  one.  One 
may  have  no  confidence  in  a  doctrine  or  project,  and  yet 
may  have  confidence  in  a  particular  advocate  of  it,  because 
a  person  may  be  different  in  his  spirit  and  intention  from 
the  nature  and  tendency  of  his  doctrine  or  project,  while 
this  is  a  fixed  quantity.  Coleridge,  in  a  conversation  with 
a  Unitarian  friend,  said :  ';  I  make  the  greatest  difference 
between  cms  and  isms.  I  should  deal  insincerely  with 
you,  if  I  said  that  I  thought  Unitarianism  is  Christianity ; 
but  God  forbid  that  I  should  doubt  that  you  and  many 
other  Unitarians  are  in  a  practical  sense  very  good  Chris- 
tians." ("Table  Talk,"  April  4, 1832.)//Wrhen  the  opponent 
of  revision  asserts  that  revision  is  anti-Calvinistic  in  its 
logic  and  tendency,  he  does  not  assert  that  all  of  its  advo- 
cates are  anti-Calvinists.  The  writer  believes  that  the 
natural  effect  of  the  proposed  changes  in  the  Confession, 
especially  those  of  the  radical  wing,  will  be  to  weaken  and 
break  down  the  Calvinistic  system  contained  in  it,  and 
endeavors  to  prove  it ;  but  he  does  not  believe  or  say  that 
this  is  the  desire  and  intention  of  all  who  urge  them. 

The  spirit  of  revision,  it  is  said,  is  "  in  the  air,"  and 
this  is  assigned  as  a  reason  why  it  should  be  stimulated 
and  strengthened.  This  would  also  be  a  reason  for  the 
increase  of  malaria.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  de- 
sire to  revise  the  Calvinistic  creed  is  pervading  Pan- 
Presbyterianism  to  a  degree  not  imagined  at  first.  If  it 
continues  to  increase,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
historical  Calvinism  will  be  considerably  modified  ;  and 
doctrinal  modification  is  an  inclined  plane.  In  an  age  of 
materialism  in  philosophy,  and  universalism  in  religion, 
when  the  Calvinistic  type  of  doctrine  is  more  violently 


PREFACE  Vll 

opposed  than  any  other  of  the  evangelical  creeds,  because 
of  its  firm  and  uncompromising  nature,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  should  not  revise  the  creed  from  which  it  has  de- 
rived its  past  solidarity  and  power,  but  should  reaffirm  it ; 
and  non-revision  is  reaffirmation. 

The  aim  of  the  author  is  twofold  :  first,  to  explain  some 
of  the  more  difficult  points  in  Calvinism,  and  thereby 
promote  the  reaffirmation  of  the  Westminster  Standards 
pure  and  simple,  precisely  as  they  were  adopted  by  both 
schools  in  the  reunion  of  1870,  instead  of  the  revision  of 
them  as  now  proposed,  which  had  it  been  urged  at  that 
time  would  have  been  fatal  to  the  cause  of  reunion  ;  and 
secondly,  to  justify  and  defend  before  the  human  under- 
standing, that  intellectual  and  powerful  system  of  theol- 
ogy which  had  its  origin  in  the  Biblical  studies  and  per- 
sonal experience  of  the  two  most  comprehensive  and 
scientific  theologians  of  Christendom,  Aurelius  Augus- 
tine and  John  Calvin. 

New  York,  February,  1893,, 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Inexpediency  op  the  Revision  op  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession,    1 

Objections    to    the   Revision    op    the   Westminster   Con- 
fession,     13 

Are  there  Doctrinal  Errors  in  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession ? 18 

The  Westminster  Standards   and  the   Universal   Offer 
of  Mercy, 24 

The  Meaning  and  Value  of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees,      .     30 

Preterition   Necessary   to   the   Sovereignty   of   God    in 
Election, 72 

Preterition  and  the  Lopsided  View  of  the  Divine  De- 
cree,         78 

The  Double  Predestination  to  Holiness  and  Sin,      .        .     88 

Common  and  Special  Grace, 00 

The  True  Proportion  in  a  Creed  between  the  Univer- 
sal and  the  Special  Love  of  God, 107 

Infant  Salvation  as  Related  to  Original  Sin,  .        .        .112 

The  Westminster  Standards  and  the  "  Larger  Hope,"     .  121 

The  Westminster  Affirmation  of  the  Original  Inerrancy 
of  the  Scriptures, 137 

Calvinism  and  the  Bible, 151 

Denominational  Honesty  and  Honor, 158 


CALVINISM:   PURE  AND  MIXED 

A  DEFENCE 


OF  THE 


WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS. 


INEXPEDIENCY   OF   THE   REVISION   OF   THE   WESTMINSTER 
CONFESSION.1 

The  question  whether  the  Westminster  Confession 
shall  be  revised,  has  been  referred  to  the  whole  Church 
represented  by  the  presbyteries.  The  common  sentiment 
of  the  denomination  must  determine  the  matter.  The 
expression  of  opinion  during  the  few  months  prior  to  the 
presbyterial  action  is,  therefore,  of  consequence.  It  is 
desirable  that  it  should  be  a  full  expression  of  all  varieties 
of  views,  and  as  a  contribution  towards  it,  we  purpose 
to  assign  some  reasons  why  the  revision  of  the  Confession 
is  not  expedient. 

1.  In  the  first  place  it  is  inexpedient,  because  in  its  ex- 
isting form  as  drawn  up  by  the  Westminster  Assembly  it 
has  met,  and  well  met,  all  the  needs  of  the  Church  for  the 
past  two  centuries.  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  since  1700  has  passed  through  a  varied  and 
sometimes  difficult  experience.     The  controversies  in  the 


1  New  York  Evangelist,  September  5,  1889. 


2  CALVINISM  : 

beginning  between  the  Old  and  New  Lights,  and  still 
more  the  vehement  disputes  that  resulted  in  the  division 
of  the  Church  in  1837,  have  tried  the  common  symbol  as 
severely  as  it  is  ever  likely  to  be.  But  through  them  all 
both  theological  divisions  were  content  with  the  Confes- 
sion  and  Catechisms  as  they  stood,  and  both  alike  claimed 
to  be  true  to  them.  Neither  party  demanded  a  revision 
on  any  doctrinal  points ;  and  both  alike  found  in  them  a 
satisfactory  expression  of  their  faith.  What  is  there  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  that  necessitates  any 
different  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  of  atone- 
ment, of  regeneration,  or  of  punishment,  from  that  ac- 
cepted by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  1837,  or  17S9  ?  Are 
the  statements  upon  these  points  any  more  liable  to  mis- 
conception or  misrepresentation  by  non-Calvinists  now 
than  they  were  fifty  or  a  hundred  years  ago  ?  Are  there 
any  more  "weak  consciences"  requiring  softening  expla- 
nations and  relaxing  clauses  in  the  Church  of  to-day  than 
in  former  periods?  And  with  reference  to  the  allowable 
differences  of  theological  opinion  within  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  is  not  a  creed  that  was  adopted  and  defended  by 
Charles  'Hodge  and  Albert  Barnes  sufficiently  broad  to 
include  all  who  are  really  Calvinistic  and  Presbyterian  in 
belief  ?  What  is  there,  we  repeat,  in  the  condition  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  to-day  that  makes  the  old  Con- 
fession of  the  past  two  hundred  years  inadequate  as  a  doc- 
trinal Standard  ?  All  the  past  successes  and  victories  of 
Presbvterianism  have  been  accomplished  under  it.  Suc- 
cess in  the  past  is  guaranty  for  success  in  the  future.  Is 
it  not  better  for  the  Church  to  work  on  the  very  same  old 
base,  in  the  very  same  straight  line  ? 

2.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  reunion  of  the 
two  divisions  of  the  Church  was  founded  upon  the  Con- 
fession as  it  now  stands.     A  proposition  to  unite  the  two 


PURE   AND    MIXED  3 

branches  of  Presbyterianism  by  first  revising  the  West- 
minster documents  would  have  failed,  because  in  the  revi- 
sion individual  and  party  preferences  would  have  shown 
themselves.  But  when  the  Standards  pure  and  simple 
were  laid  down  as  the  only  terms  of  union,  the  whole  mass 
of  Presbyterians  flowed  together.  It  is  to  be  feared  that  if 
a  revision  of  the  Confession  should  take  place,  there  will  be 
a  dissatisfied  portion  of  the  Church  who  will  prefer  to  re- 
main upon  the  historic  foundation ;  that  the  existing  har- 
mony will  be  disturbed ;  and  that  the  proposed  measures 
for  union  with  other  Presbyterian  bodies  will  fall  through. 
3.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  will  introduce 
new  difficulties.  The  explanations  will  need  to  be  ex- 
plained. The  revision  that  is  called  for  is  said  by  its 
more  conservative  advocates,  not  to  be  an  alteration  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  but  an  explanation  only. 
Now  good  and  sufficient  explanations  of  a  creed  require 
more  space  than  can  be  afforded  in  a  concise  symbol  in- 
tended for  use  in  inducting  officers  and  members.  Such 
full  and  careful  explanations  have  been  made  all  along 
from  the  beginning,  and  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Pub- 
lication has  issued  a  large  and  valuable  library  of  them. 
No  one  need  be  in  any  doubt  respecting  the  meaning  of 
the  Confession  who  will  carefully  peruse  one  or  more  of 
them.  lie  who  is  not  satisfied  with  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine as  so  explained,  will  not  be  satisfied  with  it  at  all. 
But  if  brief  explanations  are  inserted  into  the  Confession 
itself,  their  brevity  will  inevitably  expose  them  to  mis- 
understanding and  misconception.  Take  an  illustration. 
An  able  minister  and  divine,  whose  Calvinism  is  unim- 
peachable, suggests  that  Confession  iii.  3  shall  read  : 
"  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  ever- 
lasting life,  and  others  foreordained    [for  their  sins]  to 


4  CALVINISM  : 

everlasting  death."  If  the  clause  in  brackets  is  inserted 
without  further  explanation,  the  article  might  fairly  and 
naturally  be  understood  to  teach  that  the  reason  why  God 
passes  by  a  sinner  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating 
grace  is  the  sinner's  sin.  But  St.  Paul  expressly  says  that 
the  sinner's  sin  is  not  the  cause  of  his  non-election  to  re- 
generation. "  The  children  being  not  yet  born,  neither 
having  done  any  good  or  evil,  it  was  said,  The  elder 
shall  serve  the  younger.  Esau  have  I  hated"  (Rom.  9: 
11-13).  The  reason  for  the  difference  between  the  elect 
and  non-elect  is  not  the  holiness  or  the'  sin  of  either  of 
them,  but  God's  sovereign  good  pleasure.  "  He  hath 
mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will 
he  hardeneth  "  (Rom.  9  :  18).  An  explanation  like  this, 
without  further  explanation  such  as  the  proposer  would 
undoubtedly  make,  would  not  only  contradict  Scripture, 
but  change  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  into  the  Arminian. 
The  reason  for  non-election  would  no  longer  be  secret  and 
sovereign,  but  known  and  conditional.  All  this  liability 
to  misconstruction  is  avoided  by  the  Confession  itself  as 
it  now  stands.  For  in  Confession  iii.  7,  after  saying  that 
the  "  passing  by "  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating 
grace  is  an  act  of  God's  sovereign  pleasure,  "whereby  he 
extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he  pleaseth,"  it  then 
adds  that  "the  ordaining  to  dishonor  and  wrath"  is  "for 
sin."  Sin  is  here  represented  as  the  reason  for  the  judi- 
cial act  of  punishing,  but  not  for  the  sovereign  act  of  not 
regenerating.  The  only  reason  for  the  latter,  our  Lord 
gives  in  his,  "  Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in 
thy  sight." 

Other  illustrations  might  be  given  of  the  difficulty  of 
avoiding  misconception  when  a  systematic  creed  is  sought 
to  be  explained,  particularly  in  its  difficult  points,  by  the 
brief  interpolation  of  words  and  clauses.     The  method  is 


PURE   AND    MIXED  O 

too  short.  More  space  is  required  than  can  be  spared. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  to  let  a  carefully  constructed  and 
concisely  phrased  creed  like  the  Westminster  stand  ex- 
actly as  it  was  drawn  up  by  the  sixty-nine  commissioners, 
in  the  five  weekly  sessions  for  nearly  nine  years,  and  have 
it  explained,  qualified,  and  defended  in  published  trea- 
tises, in  sermons,  and  especially  in  catechetical  lectures. 
Had  the  ministry  been  as  faithful  as  it  should  in  years 
past  in  catechetical  instruction,  there  would  be  little  dif- 
ficulty in  understanding  the  Westminster  creed.  The 
remedy  needed  is  in  this  direction,  not  in  that  of  a  re- 
vision. 

4.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  there  is  no  end  to 
the  process.  It  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  divine  decrees  is  the  particular  one  selected 
by  the  presbytery  whose  request  has  brought  the  subject 
of  revision  before  the  General  Assembly.  But  this  doc- 
trine runs  entirely  through  the  Westminster  documents, 
so  that  if  changes  were  made  merely  in  the  third  chapter 
of  the  Confession,  it  would  be  wholly  out  of  harmony 
with  the  remainder.  Effectual  calling,  regeneration,  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  are  all  linked  in  with  the  divine 
decree.  The  most  cursory  perusal  will  show  that  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Confession  on  this  one  subject  would  amount 
to  an  entire  recasting  of  the  creed. 

5.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  it  may  abridge  the 
liberty  of  interpretation  now  afforded  b}7  the  Confession. 
As  an  example  of  the  variety  in  explanation  admitted  by 
the  creed  as  it  now  stands,  take  the  statement  that  "  God 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  beginning, 
created  or  made  from  nothing  the  world,  and  all  things 
therein,  in  the  space  of  six  days."  He  who  holds  the 
patristic  view  that  the  days  of  Genesis  were  periods,  and 
he   who  holds  the  modern  opinion  that  the  days  were 


6  CALVINISM  : 

solar,  can  subscribe  to  the  Westminster  statement.  But 
if  revised  in  the  interest  of  either  view,  the  subscriber  is 
shut  up  to  it  alone.  Another  example  is  found  in  the 
statement  respecting  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin.  The  advo- 
cate of  natural  union,  or  of  representative  union,  or  of 
both  in  combination,  can  find  a  foothold,  provided  only 
that  he  holds  to  the  penal  nature  of  the  first  sin.  An- 
other instance  is  the  article  concerning  "  elect  infants." 
As  the  tenet  was  formulated  by  the  Assembly,  it  has 
been  understood  to  mean,  (a)  that  all  infants  dying  in 
infancy  are  elected  as  a  class,  some  being  saved  by  cov- 
enanted mercy,  and  some  by  uncovenanted  mercy  ;  (b) 
that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  elected  as  a  class — all 
alike,  those  within  the  Church  and  those  outside  of  it, 
being  saved  by  divine  mercy,  nothing  being  said  of  the 
covenant ;  (c)  that  dying  infants  are  elected  as  individ- 
uals, some  being  elect,  and  some  non-elect.  Probably 
each  of  these  opinions  had  its  representatives  in  the 
Assembly,  and  hence  the  indefinite  form  of  the  state- 
ment. The  writer  regards  the  first-mentioned  view  as 
best  supported  by  Scripture  and  the  analogy  of  faith ; 
but  there  are  many  who  advocate  the  second  view,  and 
perhaps  there  may  be  some  who  hold  the  third.  The 
liberty  of  opinion  now  conceded  by  the  Confession  on  a 
subject  respecting  which  the  Scripture  data  are  few, 
would  be  ill-exchanged  for  a  statement  that  would  admit 
of  but  one  interpretation. 

G.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster 
Confession,  as  it  now  reads,  is  a  sufficiently  broad  and 
liberal  creed.  We  do  not  say  that  it  is  sufficiently  broad 
and  liberal  for  every  man  and  every  denomination  ;  but 
it  is  as  broad  and  liberal  for  a  Calvinist  as  any  Calvinist 
should  desire.  For  whoever  professes  Calvinism,  professes 
a  precise  form  of  doctrine.     He  expects  to  keep  within 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  7 

definite  metes  and  bounds  ;  he  is  not  one  of  those  religion- 
ists who  start  from  no  premises,  and  come  to  no  con- 
clusions, and  hold  no  tenets.  The  Presbyterian  Church 
is  a  Calvinistic  Church.  It  will  be  the  beginning  of  its 
decline,  as  it  already  has  been  of  some  Calvinistic  denom- 
inations, when  it  begins  to  swerve  from  this  dogmatic 
position.  It  must  therefore  be  distinguished  among  the 
Churches  for  doctrinal  consistency,  comprehensiveness, 
and  firmness.  But  inside  of  the  metes  and  bounds  es- 
tablished by  divine  revelation,  and  to  which  it  has  vol- 
untarily confined  itself,  it  has  a  liberty  that  is  as  large 
as  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  cannot  get  outside  of  that 
kingdom,  and  should  not  desire  to.  But  within  it,  it  is 
as  free  to  career  as  a  ship  in  the  ocean,  as  an  eagle  in  the 
air.  Yet  the  ship  cannot  sail  beyond  the  ocean,  nor  the 
eagle  fly  beyond  the  sky.  Liberty  within  the  immeasura- 
ble bounds  and  limits  of  God's  truth,  is  the  only  true 
liberty.  All  else  is  license.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession, exactly  as  it  now  reads,  has  been  the  creed  of  as 
free  and  enlarged  intellects  as  ever  lived  on  earth.  The 
substance  of  it  was  the  strong  and  fertile  root  of  the  two 
freest  movements  in  modern  history:  that  of  the  Protes- 
tant Reformation  and  that  of  Republican  Government. 
No  Presbyterian  should  complain  that  the  creed  of  his 
Church  is  narrow  and  stifling. 

And  here  we  notice  an  objection  urged  against  the 
Confession  relative  to  the  tenet  of  limited  redemption. 
It  is  said  that  it  is  not  sufficiently  broad  and  liberal  in 
announcing  the  boundless  compassion  of  God  towards  all 
men  indiscriminately,  and  in  inviting  all  men  without 
exception  to  cast  themselves  upon  it.  But  read  and 
ponder  the  following  statements  : 

"  Repentance  unto  life  is  an  evangelical  grace,  the  doc- 
trine  whereof   is   to   be  preached   in   season   and   out  of 


8  CALVINISM  : 

season  by  every  minister  of  the  gospel,  as  well  as  that 
of  faith  in  Christ.  It  is  every  man's  duty  to  endeavor  to 
repent  of  his  particular  sins,  particularly.  Every  man  is 
bound  to  make  private  confession  of  his  sins  to  God, 
praying  for  the  pardon  thereof,  upon  which,  and  the 
forsaking  of  them,  he  shall  find  mercy.  Prayer,  with 
thanksgiving,  being  one  special  part  of  religious  worship, 
is  by  God  required  of  all  men.  Prayer  is  to  be  made  for 
all  sorts  of  men  living,  or  that  shall  live  hereafter,  but  not 
for  the  dead.  God  is  to  be  worshipped  everywhere  in 
spirit  and  in  truth,  and  in  secret  each  one  by  himself. 
God  in  his  Word,  by  a  positive  moral  commandment,  binds 
all  men  in  all  ages.  The  grace  of  God  is  manifested  in  the 
second  covenant,  in  that  he  freely  provideth  and  offer- 
eth  to  sinners  a  mediator,  and  life  and  salvation  in  him. 
The  ministry  of  the  gospel  testifies  that  whosoever  be- 
lieves in  Christ  shall  be  saved,  and  excludes  none  that 
will  come  unto  him.  God  is  able  to  search  the  heart, 
hear  the  requests,  pardon  the  sins,  and  fulfil  the  desires, 
of  all." 

These  declarations,  scattered  broadcast  through  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  teach  the  uni- 
versality of  the  Gospel,  except  no  human  creature  from 
the  offer  of  it,  and  exclude  no  human  creature  from  its 
benefits.  Their  consistency  with  the  doctrine  of  election 
is  assumed,  but  not  explained,  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
And  no  revision  of  this  by  the  mere  interpolation  of  a  few 
words  or  clauses,  will  make  the  subject  any  clearer,  or 
stop  all  objections. 

7.  Revision  is  inexpedient,  because  the  Westminster 
Standards  already  make  full  provision  for  those  ex- 
ceptional cases,  on  account  of  which  revision  is  claimed 
by  its  advocates  to  be  needed.  It  is  said  that  there  are 
some  true  believers  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  cannot 


PURE   AND   MIXED  9 

adopt  all  the  AVestminster  statements,  who  yet  should  not 
be,  and  actually  are  not,  excluded  from  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ;  that  there  are  tender  consciences  of  good  men, 
whose  scruples  are  to  be  respected.  But  these  cases  are 
referred  by  the  Form  of  Government  to  the  church 
session,  and  power  is  given  to  it  to  receive  into  member- 
ship any  person  who  trusts  in  the  blood  of  Christ  for  the 
remission  of  sin,  although  his  doctrinal  knowledge  and 
belief  may  be  unsatisfactory  on  some  points.  He  may 
stumble  at  predestination,  but  if  with  the  publican  he 
cries  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner,"  he  has  the  root 
of  the  matter  in  him,  and  is  a  regenerate  child  of  God. 
But  why  should  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  revise  its 
entire  creed,  so  as  to  make  it  fit  these  exceptional  cases  ? 
Why  should  the  mountain  go  to  Mohammed  ?  Why 
should  a  genuine  but  deficient  evangelical  knowledge  and 
experience  be  set  up  as  the  type  of  doctrine  for  the  whole 
denomination  ?  These  "babes  in  Christ"  need  the  educa- 
tion of  the  full  and  complete  system  of  truth,  and  should 
gradually  be  led  up  to  it,  instead  of  bringing  the  system 
down  to  their  level.  There  is  sometimes  a  misconception 
at  this  point.  We  have  seen  it  stated  that  the  member- 
ship of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  required  or  ex- 
pected to  hold  the  same  doctrine  with  the  officers ;  that 
the  pastor,  elders,  and  deacons  must  accept  the  Confession 
of  Faith  "  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures,"  but  that  the  congregation  need  not. 
But  this  error  arises  from  confounding  the  toleration  of  a 
deficiency  with  the  endorsement  of  it.  Because  a  church 
session  tolerates  in  a  particular  person,  who  gives  evidence 
of  faith  in  Christ,  an  error  respecting  foreordination,  or 
even  some  abstruse  point  in  the  trinity,  or  the  incarna- 
tion, it  does  not  thereby  endorse  the  error.  It  does  not 
sanction  his  opinion  on  these  subjects,  but  only  endures 


10  CALVINISM  : 

it,  in  view  of  his  religious  experience  on  the  vital  points 
of  faith  and  repentance,  and  with  the  hope  that  his  sub- 
sequent growth  in  knowledge  will  bring  him  to  the  final 
rejection  of  it.  The  Presbyterian  Church  tolerates  thea- 
tre-going in  some  of  its  members :  that  is  to  say,  it  does 
not  discipline  them  for  it.  But  it  does  not  formally 
approve  of  and  sanction  theatre-going.  A  proposition  to 
revise  the  Confession  by  inserting  a  clause  to  this  effect, 
in  order  to  meet  the  wishes  and  practice  of  theatre-go- 
ing church-members,  would  be  voted  down  by  the  pres- 
byteries. 

The  position  that  the  officers  of  a  church  may  have  one 
creed,  and  the  membership  another,  is  untenable.  No 
church  could  live  and  thrive  upon  it.  A  Trinitarian 
clergy  preaching  to  an  Arian  or  Socinian  membership, 
would  preach  to  unwilling  hearers.  And  although  the 
difference  is  not  so  great  and  so  vital,  yet  a  Calvinistic 
clergy  preaching  to  an  Arminian  membership,  or  an 
Arminian  clergy  to  a  Calvinistic  membership,  would  on 
some  points  find  unsympathetic  auditors.  Pastor  and 
people,  officers  and  members,  must  be  homogeneous  in 
doctrine,  in  order  to  a  vigorous  church-life.  If,  there- 
fore, a  certain  class  of  members  is  received  into  a  church, 
who  do  not  on  all  points  agree  with  the  Church  creed, 
this  is  not  to  be  understood  as  giving  the  members  gener- 
ally a  liberty  to  depart  from  the  Church  creed,  or  to  be  a 
reason  for  revising  it.1 

The  case  is  different  with  the  officers  of  the  church. 

1  The  question  whether  there  shall  be  a  short  creed  to  be  used  in  the 
admission  of  members  into  the  Church,  is  entirely  distinct  from  that 
tti!  revision.  Such  a  creed  ought  not,  of  course,  to  contain  anything 
contradictory  to  the  larger  creed  which  makes  a  part  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Church,  and  is  used  in  the  induction  of  ministers,  elders,  and 
theological  professors. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  ,11 

There  is  no  exceptional  class  in  this  instance.  Neither 
the  session  nor  the  presbytery  have  any  authority  to  dis- 
pense with  the  acceptance  of  any  part  of  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  when  a  pastor,  elder,  or  deacon  is  inducted  into 
office.  There  is  no  toleration  of  defective  views  provided 
for,  when  those  who  are  to  teach  and  rule  the  Church  are 
put  into  the  ministry.  And  this  for  the  good  reason  that 
ministers  and  elders  are  expected  to  be  so  well  indoctrin- 
ated, that,  they  are  "apt  to  teach"  and  competent  to 
"  rule  well."  Some  propose  "  loose  subscription "  as  a 
remedy,  when  candidates  of  lax  or  unsettled  views  present 
themselves  for  licensure  and  ordination.  This  is  demor- 
alizing, and  kills  all  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity.  Bet- 
ter a  thousand  times  for  a  denomination  to  alter  its  creed, 
than  to  allow  its  ministry  to  "  palter  with  words  in  a 
double  meaning;"  than  to  permit  an  Arian  subscription. 
to  the  Nicene  Symbol,  an  Arminian  subscription  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  a  Calvinistic  subscription  to 
the  Articles  of  Wesley,  a  Restorationist  subscription  to 
the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment. 

For  these  reasons,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  proposed  re- 
vision of  the  Westminster  Confession  is  not  wise  or  ex- 
pedient. The  revision  of  a  denominational  creed  is  a  rare 
occurrence  in  ecclesiastical  history.  Commonly  a  denom- 
ination remains  from  first  to  last  upon  the  base  that  was 
laid  for  it  in  the  beginning  by  its  fathers  and  founders. 
And  when  revision  does  occur,  it  is  seldom  in  the  direc- 
tion of  fulness  and  precision.  Usually  the  alteration  is 
in  favor  of  vague  and  looser  statements.  Even  slight 
changes  are  apt  to  be  followed  by  greater  ones.  The  dis- 
position to  revise  and  alter,  needs  watching.  In  an  age 
when  the  general  drift  of  the  unregenerate  world  is  away 
from  the  strong  statements  of  the  Hebrew  prophets,  of 
Christ  and  his  inspired  Apostles,  it  is  of  the  utmost  im- 


12  CALVINISM  : 

portance  that  the  regenerate  Church,  in  all  its  denomina- 
tions, should  stand  firm  in  the  old  paths,  and  hold  fast  to 
that  "  Word  of  God  which  is  sharper  than  a  two-edged 
sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and 
spirit." 


PURE   AND   MIXED  13 


II. 

OBJECTIONS   TO   THE   REVISION   OF   THE   WESTMINSTER 
CONFESSION.1 

The  first  question  sent  down  to  the  presbyteries  is  the 
most  important  of  the  two;  namely,  Whether  a  revision  of 
the  Confession  is  desired.  If  this  is  answered  in  the  neg- 
ative, it  will  mean  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the 
present  day  is  satisfied  with  its  ancestral  faith,  as  formu- 
lated in  its  Standards,  and  accords  with  the  Church  of  the 
past  in  this  respect.  It  will  be  a  formal  and  positive  ■re- 
affirmation of  the  historic  Calvinism,  at  a  time  when  this 
system  of  doctrine  is  charged  with  being  unscriptural,  er- 
roneous, and  antiquated  by  modern  theological  progress. 
If  it  be  answered  in  the  affirmative,  it  will  mean  that  the 
Church  of  the  present  d<iy  is  more  or  less  dissatisfied  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and  is  no 
longer  willing  to  endorse  and  preach  them  as  that  body  of 
divines  defined  and  stated  them.  Revision  is  alteration, 
more  or  less.  The  object  is  not  merely  to  make  sure  that 
the  creed  just  as  it  stands  is  understood ;  but  to  modify  it 
either  in  its  structural  plan,  its  component  parts,  its  em- 
phasis, or  its  general  perspective.  The  second  question, 
How  much  revision  is  desired?  is  comparatively  of  less 
consequence,  because  it  is  the  first  question  alone  that 
decides  the  vital  point,  whether  the  Presbyterian  Church 

1  New  York  Presbytery,  November  20,  1889  ;  Northwestern  Presby- 
terian, November  23,  1889. 


14  CALVINISM  : 

has  drifted  at  all  from  the  old  anchorage.  For  this  rea- 
son, we  present  in  a  brief  form  the  following  objections 
to  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession  : 

1.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  the  project  origin- 
ated in  too  small  a  fraction  of  the  Church.  Only  fifteen 
presbyteries  out  of  two  hundred  and  two  united  in  over- 
turing  the  Assembly  in  its  favor.  The  remaining  one 
hundred  and  eighty-seven  will  have  to  be  argued  and  per- 
suaded into  it.  But  so  important  a  step  as  the  revision  of 
the  doctrinal  basis  of  a  denomination  should  begin  in  a 
general  uprising  of  the  whole  body,  and  be  the  spontane- 
ous and  strongly  expressed  desire  of  the  great  majority  of 
its  members.  The  revision  of  secondary  matters,  like  the 
form  of  government  and  discipline,  does  not  require  this 
in  the  same  degree.  As  the  case  now  stands,  fifteen 
presbyteries  have  asked  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven 
presbyteries  if  they  do  not  want  to  amend  the  Confes- 
sion. There  should  have  been  a  far  wider  dissatisfac- 
tion with  the  Standards  than  this  indicates,  to  initiate  re- 
vision. 

2.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  the  Confession  is  a 
correct  statement  of  "  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in 
the  Scriptures."  The  system  meant  in  this  phrase  is  uni- 
versally known  as  the  Calvinistic ;  not  as  resting  upon  the 
authority  of  Calvin,  but  as  a  convenient  designation  of 
that  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  common  to  Au- 
gustine, Calvin,  the  Reformed  theologians,  and  the  "West- 
minster divines.  The  term  "evangelical"  does  not  define 
it,  because  there  are  several  evangelical  systems,  but  only 
one  Calvinistic.  The  systems  of  Arminius,  of  Wesley, 
and  of  the  Later-Lutherans,  as  well  as  that  of  Calvin,  are 
alike  evangelical,  in  distinction  from  anti-evangelical  sys- 
tems like  Socinianism  and  Deism.  They  are  all  alike 
derived  from  the  Bible,  and  contain  the  doctrines  of  the 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  15 

trinity,  the  incarnation,  the  apostasy,  and  the  redemption. 
But  the  Calvinistic  interpretation  of  Scripture,  which  is 
the  one  formulated  in  the  Westminster  Standards,  differs 
from  these  other  "evangelical"  systems,  in  teaching  un- 
conditional election  and  pretention,  instead  of  conditional ; 
limited  redemption  (not  atonement)  instead  of  unlimited; 
regeneration  wholly  by  the  Holy  Spirit  instead  of  partly  ; 
the  total  inability  of  the  sinner  instead  of  partial.  The 
Calvinistic  system,  as  thus  discriminated  from  the  other 
"  evangelical "  systems,  has  been  adopted  by  American 
Presbyterians  for  two  centuries.  Neither  Old  Lights,  nor 
New  Lights  ;  neither  Old  School,  nor  New  School ;  have 
demanded  that  these  tenets  which  distinguish  Calvinism 
from  Arminianism  should  be  eliminated  from  the  creed. 
They  were  accepted  with  equal  sincerity  by  both  branches 
of  the  Church  in  the  reunion  of  1870,  and  there  is  no  rea- 
son for  altering  the  formulas  that  were  satisfactory  then, 
unless  the  belief  of  the  Church  has  altered  in  regard  to 
these  distinctive  points  of  Calvinism. 

3.  The  revision  of  the  Confession  is  objectionable,  be- 
cause the  principal  amendments  proposed  by  its  advocates 
will  introduce  error  into  it,  so  that  it  will  no  longer  be 
"  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures." 
The  four  following  alterations  are  urged  upon  the  Church  : 
(a)  To  strike  out  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  God 
in  pretention,  leaving  the  doctrine  of  election  unlimited 
and  universal,  (b)  To  retain  pretention,  but  assign  as 
the  reason  for  it  the  sin  of  the  non-elect,  (c)  To  strike 
out  the  statement  that  the  number  of  the  elect  and  non- 
elect  is  "so  certain  and  definite,  that  it  cannot  be  increased 
or  diminished"  by  "  angels  and  men."  (d)  To  strike  out 
the  statement  that  no  man  who  rejects  the  "  Christian  re- 
ligion," or  the  evangelical  method  of  salvation,  can  be 
saved  by  the  legal  method  of  living  "according  to  the 


16  CALVINISM  : 

light  of  nature,"  or  some  system  of  morality  which  lie 
"  professes."  If  these  changes  are  made,  the  Westminster 
Standards  will  no  longer  contain  a  class  of  truths  that  are 
plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  will  cease  to  be  that  "sys- 
tem of  doctrine"  which  their  authors  had  in  mind,  and  to 
which  the  present  generation  of  ministers  and  elders  have 
subscribed  like  their  fathers  before  them. 

4.  Revision  is  objectionable,  because  it  will  be  a  conces- 
sion to  the  enemies  of  the  Standards  that  their  aspersions 
of  them  are  true.  The  charges  that  have  been  made  by 
the  opponents  of  them  from  time  immemorial  are,  that 
Calvinism  represents  God  as  a  tyrannical  sovereign  who 
is  destitute  of  love  and  mercy  for  any  but  an  elect  few, 
that  it  attributes  to  man  the  depravity  of  devils,  deprives 
him  of  moral  freedom,  and  subjects  him  to  the  arbitrary 
cruelty  of  a  Being  who  creates  some  men  in  order  to  damn 
them.  A  few  ministers  and  elders  within  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church  endorse  these  allegations  ;  and  many  assert 
that  the  Confession  contains  no  universal  offer  of  salva- 
tion, teaches  that  none  of  the  heathen  are  saved,  and  that 
some  infants  are  non-elect  and  lost.  The  great  reason 
assigned  by  such  Presbyterians  for  revising  the  Standards 
is,  that  they  inculcate  unscriptural  and  offensive  doctrines 
that  cannot  be  believed  or  preached.  But  this  is  to  con- 
cede that  all  preceding  Presbyterians  have  been  grossly 
mistaken  in  denying  that  the  Confession  contains  such 
doctrines,  either  directly  or  by  implication.  It  is  an 
acknowledgment  that  one  of  the  most  carefully  drawn 
and  important  of  all  the  Reformed  symbols,  inculcates  in 
a  latent  form  some  of  the  most  repulsive  tenets  conceiv- 
able by  the  human  mind.  Presbyterians  of  all  schools 
have  hitherto  met  this  calumny  on  their  creed  by  contra- 
dicting it,  and  trying  the  issue  by  close  reasoning  and  de- 
bate.    Revision  proposes,  in  the  legal  phrase,  to  give  a 


PURE    AND   MIXED  17 

cognovit,  admit  the  charge,  and  alter  the  standards  to  suit 
the  enemy  who  made  it. 

5.  Pevision  is  objectionable,  because  it  will  reopen  the 
old  discussions  and  controversies  upon  the  difficult  doc- 
trines, without  resulting  in  any  better  definitions  of  them 
than  the}'  already  have  in  the  Church.  On  the  contrary, 
the  great  variety  of  changes  that  will  be  urged,  from  the 
very  conservative  to  the  very  radical,  will  introduce  a  pe- 
riod of  speculative  dispute  and  disagreement  that  will 
seriously  impair  the  existing  harmony  of  the  denomina- 
tion, and  divert  its  attention  from  the  great  practical  in- 
terests of  Christ's  kingdom  in  which  it  is  now  engaged. 

These  five  objections,  it  seems  to  us,  are  conclusive 
reasons  why  the  Presbyterian  Church  should  not  alter, 
but  reaffirm  the  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Standards, 
and  continue  to  teach  and  defend  them  as  they  have  been 
by  all  the  past  generations  of  Presbyterians. 


18  CALVINISM  : 


III. 


ARE    THERE    DOCTRINAL    ERRORS    IN    THE    WESTMINSTER 
CONFESSION  ?  > 

The  strongest  reason  presented  for  the  revision  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  is  the  allegation  that  the  phrase- 
ology of  some  of  its  sections  contains  serious  error,  or  is 
liable  to  be  understood  as  containing  it.  Is  this  true  ? 
In  order  to  answer  this  question,  we  shall  examine  a  few 
of  the  principal  sections  which  are  asserted  to  be  errone- 
ous either  in  their  direct  teaching  or  in  their  implication. 

1.  Confession  iii.  3  asserts  that  "  By  the  decree  of  God, 
for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels 
are  predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore- 
ordained to  everlasting  death."  It  is  contended  that  this 
section  teaches,  or  is  liable  to  be  understood  as  teaching, 
that  the  decree  of  God  in  election  and  reprobation  has  no 
connection  with  sin  and  the  fall  of  man,  but  that  God  by 
an  arbitrary  decree,  wholly  irrespective  of  sin,  creates 
some  men  in  order  to  save  them,  and  some  men  in  order 
to  damn  them.  To  correct  this  alleged  error,  or  liability 
of  interpretation,  several  advocates  of  revision  propose  to 
insert  the  clause,  "  On  account  of  their  sins,"  to  qualify 
the  clause,  "  Foreordained  to  everlasting  death  ; "  and 
one  advocate  of  revision  proposes  to  strike  out  the  entire 
section  concerning  election  and  reprobation. 

We  maintain  that  the  Confession  neither  teaches  the 


1  Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  October  19,  1889. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  19 

error  aforesaid,  nor  is  fairly  liable  to  be  understood  to 
teach  it.  According  to  Confession  iii.  6,  both  the  elect 
and  non-elect  are  "  fallen  In  Adam,"  and  are  thereby  in  a 
common  guilty  state  of  sin.  The  former  are  delivered 
out  of  sin  by  regenerating  grace,  and  the  latter  are  left  in 
sin.  Why  are  the  latter  left  in  sin  ?  Because  "  God  so 
pleased,1'  is  the  reason  given  by  the  Confession.  "  On 
account  of  their  sins,"  is  the  reason  which  the  reviser 
would  insert  into  the  Confession.  But  this,  surely,  can- 
not be  the  reason  why  God  leaves  a  sinner  in  his  sin.  I 
see  two  suicides  who  have  flung  themselves  into  the 
water.  I  rescue  one  of  them,  and  the  other  I  let  drown. 
They  are  both  alike  in  the  water,  and  by  their  own  free 
agency.  But  his  being  in  the  water,  is  not  the  reason 
why  I  do  not  rescue  the  one  whom  I  let  drown.  I  have 
some  other  reason.  It  may  be  a  good  one  or  a  bad  one. 
But  whatever  it  be,  it  certainly  is  not  because  the  man  is 
in  the  water.  Similarly  God  does  not  leave  a  sinner  in  his 
own  voluntary  and  loved  sin  because  he  is  in  sin.  He 
has  some  other  reason  why  he  makes  this  discrimination 
between  two  persons,  both  of  whom  are  in  sin,  neither  of 
whom  has  any  claim  upon  his  mercy,  and  neither  of 
whom  is  more  deserving  of  election  and  regeneration  than 
the  other.  God's  reason,  in  this  case,  we  know  must  be 
a  good  one.  But  it  is  a  secret  with  himself.  The  only 
answer  to  the  inquiry,  ""Why  didst  thou  elect  and  regen- 
erate Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  didst  not  elect  and  regenerate 
Judas  Iscariot  ? "  is,  "  Because  it  seemed  good  in  my 
sight." 

The  allegation  that  there  is  error  in  this  section  of  the 
Confession  arises  from  misunderstanding  the  meaning  of 
the  clause,  "  Foreordained  to  everlasting  death."  It  is 
the  omission  to  regenerate,  not  the  punishment  of  sin,  that 
is  intended   bv  it.     When  God  "  foreordains  "  a  sinner 


20  CALVINISM  : 

"  to  everlasting  death,1'  lie  decides  to  leave  him  in  the  sin 
which  deserves  everlasting  deatli  and  results  in  it.  The 
non-elect  sinner  has  experienced  the  operation  of  common 
grace.  It  is  an  error  to  say  that  God  shows  no  kind  or 
degree  of  mercy  to  the  non-elect.  But  he  has  resisted 
and  defeated  it.  God  decides  to  proceed  no  further  with 
him  by  the  bestowment  of  that  special  grace  which  regen- 
erates, and  "  makes  willing  in  the  day  of  God's  power." 
The  elect  sinner  has  also  experienced,  resisted,  and  de- 
feated common  grace.  God  decides  to  proceed  further 
with  him,  by  effectual  calling  and  regeneration.  The  par- 
ticular question,  therefore,  in  this  paragraph  of  the  Con- 
fession is,  "  Why  does  God  leave  a  sinner  to  his  own  wilful 
free  agency  ?  "  and  not,  "  Why  does  God  punish  him  for 
it?"  The  answer  to  the  first  question  is,  "Because  of 
his  sovereign  good  pleasure."  The  answer  to  the  second 
is,  "  Because  of  the  ill-desert  of  sin."  The  reason  why 
God  omits  to  take  the  second  step,  and  exert  a  yet  higher 
degree  of  grace  after  his  first  step  in  exerting  a  lower  de- 
gree has  been  thwarted  by  the  resistance  of  the  sinner,  is 
entirely  different  from  the  reason  why  he  inflicts  retribu- 
tion npon  the  sinner's  sin.  This  is  more  fully  explained 
in  the  seventh  section  of  the  third  chapter,  which  should 
always  be  read  in  connection  with  the  third.  Here,  the 
reason  for  God's  "  passing  by,"  or  omitting  to  regenerate 
a  sinner,  is  found  in  "  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his  own 
will  whereby  he  extendeth  or  withholdeth  mercy  as  he 
pleaseth."  This  first  negative  part  of  reprobation,  which 
is  properly  called  "  pretention,"  is  not  -qualified  by  the 
clause,  "  for  their  sin,"  as  the  correct  punctuation  in  the 
Board's  edition  shows.  This  latter  clause  qualifies  only 
the  sentence,  "  And  to  ordain  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath."  Sinners  are  punished  "for  their  sin',"  but  sin  is 
not  the  reason  why  God  does  not  regenerate  them.     If  sin 


PURE   AND    MIXED  21 

were  the  reason  for  non-election,  holiness,  logically,  would 
be  the  reason  for  election.  If  some  men  are  not  regen- 
erated because  they  are  unbelieving,  others  would  be  re- 
generated because  they  are  believing.  This  is  the  Ar- 
minian  doctrine,  not  the  Calvinistic  ;  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  the  AVestminster  Assembly  did  not  qualify  the 
words,  "  pass  by,"  by  the  proposed  clause,  "  for  their 
sins,"  but  left  "  passing  by,"  or  "  foreordination  to  ever- 
lasting death,"  to  be  a  purely  sovereign  act  according  to 
"  the  good  pleasure  "  of  God. 

2.  Confession  iii.  4  teaches  that  "  the  angels  and  men 
thus  predestinated  and  foreordained  are  particularly  and 
unchangeably  designed  ;  and  their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  dimin- 
ished." One  advocate  of  revision  proposes  that  this 
whole  section  be  struck  out  of  the  Standards,  because  it 
"  is  not  a  scriptural  form  of  expression  ;  it  is  mislead- 
ing." 

AVhat  is  the  meaning  of  this  section  ?  "  Increased  or 
diminished  "  by  whom  f  AVliat  is  the  ellipsis  intended  to 
be  supplied  by  the  framers  of  the  statement?  Plainly 
they  meant  that  the  number  of  the  elect  and  non-elect 
cannot  be  increased  or  diminished  by  the  "  angels  and 
men  "  spoken  of  in  the  connection  :  that  is,  by  any  finite 
power.  Neither  the  human  will,  nor  the  angelic,  can  de- 
termine the  number  of  God's  elect  and  non-elect,  because 
this  depends  wholly  upon  "  the  counsel  of  his  own  will." 
Of  course,  the  Assembly  did  not  mean  to  say  that  God 
could  not  have  made  the  number  of  his  elect  larger  or 
smaller,  if  "  the  counsel  of  his  own  will "  had  so  deter- 
mined. Probably  no  advocate  of  revision  understands 
the  Confession  to  teach  this.  But  will  any  advocate  of  it 
say  that  the  number  of  the  regenerate  and  saved  can  be 
made  greater  or  less  by  the  decision  and  action  of  either 

> 


. 


22  CALVINISM  : 

the  unregenerate  world,  or  the  regenerate  church  ?  This 
would  contradict  the  statement  of  St.  John,  that  the  elect 
"  sons  of  God  are  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  It  would  also 
contradict  the  corresponding  statement  in  the  Confession 
which  teaches  that  "  in  effectual  calling  man  is  altogether 
passive,  until  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  is  thereby  enabled  to  answer  the  call,  and  to 
embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  by  it "  (Confession 
x.  2).  This  fourth  section  of  the  third  chapter  is  simply 
another  way  of  teaching  the  common  doctrine,  running 
all  through  the  Standards,  that  the  sinful  will  is  in  hond- 
age  to  sin,  and  cannot  regenerate  itself,  and  that  conse- 
quently the  number  of  the  regenerate  depends  wholly 
upon  the  will  and  decision  of  God. 

3.  Confession  x.  4  asserts  that  "  men  not  professing  the 
Christian  religion  cannot  be  saved  in  any  other  way  what- 
soever, be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  ac- 
cording to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  relig- 
ion they  do  profess."  This  is  alleged  to  be  erroneous 
by  an  advocate  of  revision,  because  "  every  promise  and 
every  warning  of  God  is  addressed  to  man  as  a  free  agent, 
and  not  as  one  who  cannot  be  saved." 

Who  are  the  persons  "  not  professing  the  Christian  re- 
ligion ?  "  They  are  those  who  reject  it,  either  formally, 
or  in  their  spirit  and  disposition.  The  class  here  spoken 
of  are  the  legalists  of  every  variety,  who  repudiate  salva- 
tion through  Christ's  blood  and  righteousness,  and  rely 
upon  "diligently  framing  their  lives  according  to  the  light 
of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  which  they  do  pro- 
fess"— which  is  some  other  than  "the  Christian  religion," 
which  they  do  not  "  profess,"  but  contemn.  The  Chris- 
tian religion  is  evangelical  religion,  and  this  they  dislike. 
They  expect  to  be  saved  by  morality  and  personal  virtue, 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  23 

and  not  by  faith  in  the  vicarious    atonement  of  Jesus 

Christ. 

The  doctrine  then,  in  this  section  is,  in  brief,  that  no 
man  can  be  saved  by  good  works ;  by  any  endeavors  how- 
ever "  diligent  "  to  obey  the  written  ]aw  of  the  decalogue, 
as  the  Christian  legalist  does,  or  the  unwritten  law  of 
conscience,  as  the  heathen  legalist  does.  Now  concern- 
ing this  class  of  persons  St.  Paul  explicitly  says  that 
"they  cannot  be  saved."  "By  the  deeds  of  the  law  shall 
no  flesh  be  justified."  St.  Peter  says  the  same.  "There 
is  no  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  where- 
by we  must  be  saved." 

There  is  nothing  in  this  section  that  denies  the  possi- 
bility of  the  salvation  of  any  sinner  on  earth  who  feels 
his  sin,  and  trusts  in  the  sacrifice  of  Christ  in  case  he 
has  heard  of  it,  or  would  trust  in  it  if  he  should  hear  of 
it.  It  does  not  teach  that  no  heathen  is  or  can  be  saved. 
This  fourth  section,  so  often  misunderstood  and  misrepre- 
sented, is  aimed  at  the  self-righteous  moralist,  whether  in 
Christendom  or  Heathendom,  who  has  no  sorrow  for  sin, 
feels  no  need  of  God's  mercy  as  manifested  in  Christ,  and 
has  no  disposition  to  cast  himself  upon  it,  but  claims  the 
rewards  of  eternity  on  the  ground  of  personal  character 
and  obedience  to  "  the  light  of  nature  "  and  the  maxims 
of  morality.  It  is  only  a  bold  and  strong  assertion  of 
the  great  truth,  that  no  sinner  can  be  saved  by  his  most 
strenuous  endeavors  to  keep  the  moral  law.  It  is  not 
strange,  therefore,  that  this  section  closes  with  the  affir- 
mation that  "  to  assert  and  maintain  the  contrary  is  very 
pernicious  and  to  be  detested." 

If  this  is  the  correct  explanation  of  these  three  sections 
of  the  Confession,  it  is  evident  that  they  neither  teach 
nor  imply  error,  and  therefore  do  not  need  any  revision. 


24  CALVINISM  : 


IV. 


THE   WESTMINSTER    STANDARDS   AND   THE    UNIVERSAL 
OFFER   OF   MERCY.1 

The  Westminster  Standards  are  now  meeting  an  attack 
from  some  who  have  adopted  them  as  their  religions 
creed.  Formerly  the  onset  came  from  the  enemy  on  the 
outside,  now  it  comes  from  within  the  Church.  When  so 
many  presbyterians  are  objecting  to  the  Confession  as 
containing  '•  offensive  articles  that  wound  the  consciences 
of  tens  of  thousands  of  loyal  and  orthodox  presbyterians," 
it  is  proper  for  an  ordinary  presbyterian  to  say  a  good 
word  for  the  time-honored  symbol  which  has  been  sub- 
scribed by  the  present  generation  of  ministers  and  elders, 
and  was  dear  to  all  the  former  generations.  May  it  not 
be  that  these  "  offensive  articles"  are  not  in  the  Stand- 
ards, and  that  the  advocates  of  revision,  in  order  to  find  a 
sufficient  reason  for  their  project,  are  inventing  and  fight- 
ing men  of  straw  ?  Let  us  look  at  one  of  these  alleged 
offences. 

It  is  strenuously  contended  that  the  Standards  contain 
no  declaration  of  the  love  of  God  towards  all  men,  but 
limit  it  to  the  elect ;  that  they  make  no  universal  offer  of 
salvation,  but  confine  it  to  a  part  of  mankind. 

The  following  declaration  is  found  in  Confession  ii.  1. 
"  There  is  but  one  only  living  and  true  God,  who  is  most 
loving,    gracious,    merciful,    long  suffering,    abundant    in 

1  New  York  Observer,  November  14,  1889. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  25 

goodness  and  truth,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression  and 
sin,  the  re  warder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  him."  Of 
whom  speaketh  the  Confession  this?  of  the  God  of  the 
elect  only  ?  or  of  the  God  of  every  man  ?  Is  he  the  God 
of  the  elect  only  ?  Is  he  not  also  of  the  non-elect  ?  Is 
this  description  of  the  gracious  nature  and  attributes  of 
God  intended  to  be  restricted  to  a  part  of  mankind  ?  Is 
not  God  as  thus  delineated  the  Creator  and  Father  of 
every  man  without  exception  ?  Can  it  be  supposed  that 
the  authors  of  this  statement  meant  to  be  understood  to 
say  that  God  is  not  such  a  being  for  all  men,  but  only  for 
some?  If  this  section  does  not  teach  the  unlimited  love 
and  compassion  of  God  towards  all  men  as  men,  as  his 
creatures,  it  teaches  nothing. 

The  following  declaration  is  found  in  Confession  xv.  1, 
Larger  Catechism,  159.  "  Repentance  unto  life  is  an 
evangelical  grace,  the  doctrine  whereof  is  to  be  preached 
in  season  and  out  of  season  by  every  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel, as  well  as  that  of  faith  in  Christ."  This  certainly 
teaches  that  faith  and  repentance  are  the  duty  of  all  men, 
not  of  some  only.  No  one  contends  that  the  Confession 
teaches  that  God  has  given  a  limited  command  to  repent. 
"  God  commandeth  all  men  everywhere  to  repent."  But 
how  could  he  give  such  a  universal  command  to  all  sin- 
ners if  he  is  not  willing  to  pardon  all  sinners  ?  if  his 
benevolent  love  is  confined  to  some  sinners  in  particular? 
How  could  our  Lord  command  his  ministers  to  preach  the 
doctrine  of  faith  and  repentance  to  "  every  creature,"  if 
he  does  not  desire  that  every  one  of  them  would  believe 
and  repent  ?  And  how  can  he  desire  this  if  he  does  not 
feel  infinite  love  for  the  souls  of  all  ?  When  the  Confes- 
sion teaches  the  duty  of  universal  faith  and  repentance,  it 
teaches  by  necessary  inference  the  doctrine  of  God's  uni- 
versal compassion  and  readiness  to  forgive.     And  it  also 


26  CALVINISM  : 

teaches  in  the  same  inferential  way,  that  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ  for  sin  is  ample  for  the  forgiveness  of  every  man. 
To  preach  the  duty  of  immediate  belief  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  as  obligatory  upon  every  man,  in  connection  with 
the  doctrine  imputed  to  the  Confession  by  the  reviser, 
that  God  feels  compassion  for  only  the  elect,  and  that 
Christ's  sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  all,  would  be  self- 
contradictory.  The  two  things  cannot  be  put  together. 
The  reviser  misunderstands  the  Standards,  and  reads  into 
them  a  false  doctrine  that  is  not  there. 

Confession  xv.  5,  C,  declares  that  "  it  is  every  man's 
duty  to  endeavor  to  repent  of  his  particular  sins  particu- 
larly. Every  man  is  bound  to  make  private  confession  of 
his  sins  to  God,  praying  for  the  pardon  thereof,  upon 
which,  and  the  forsaking  of  them,  he  shall  find  mercy." 
llow  shall  every  such  man  find  mercy,  if  the  reviser's 
understanding  of  the  Confession  is  correct  ?  if  it  teaches 
that  God's  love  for  sinners  is  limited  to  the  elect,  and 
that  Christ's  sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  the  sins  of  all  ? 
According  to  the  revised  version,  the  meaning  of  the 
Westminster  divines  in  this  section  is,  that  some  men 
who  "pray  for  pardon  and  forsake  sin"  shall  "find 
mercy,"  and  some  shall  not. 

Larger  Catechism,  1G0,  declares  that  "  it  is  required  of 
those  that  hear  the  word  preached,  that  they  attend  upon 
it  with  diligence,  preparation  and  prayer;  receive  the 
truth  in  faith,  love,  meekness  and  readiness  of  mind,  as 
the  word  of  God  ;  hide  it  in  their  hearts,  and  bring  forth 
the  fruit  of  it  in  their  lives."  Would  God  require  all  this 
from  every  hearer  of  the  word,  if  he  were  not  kindly 
disposed  towards  him?  if  he  did  not  love  and  pity  his 
immortal  soul,  and  desire  its  salvation  ?  Does  not  this 
declaration  mean  that  God  will  encourage,  assist,  and 
bless  every  hearer  of   the  word  without  exception  who 


PURE   AND    MIXED  27 

does  the  things  mentioned  ?  What  shadow  of  reason 
is  there  for  alleging  that  it  means  that  God  will  help 
and  bless  some  of  these  hearers,  and  some  he  will  not  ? 
But  in  order  to  make  out  that  the  section  does  not  teach 
the  universal  offer  of  mercy,  this  must  be  the  allega- 
tion. 

Larger  Catechism,  95,  declares  that  "  the  moral  law  is 
of  use  to  all  men,  to  inform  thein  of  the  holy  nature  and 
will  of  God  ;  to  convince  them  of  their  disability  to  keep 
it,  and  of  the  sinful  pollution  of  their  nature  ;  to  humble 
them  in  the  sense  of  sin  and  misery,  and  thereby  help 
them  to  a  clearer  sight  of  the  need  they  have  of  Christ, 
and  of  the  perfection  of  his  obedience."  But  what  is  the 
use  of  showing  every  man  his  need  of  Christ,  if  Christ's 
sacrifice  is  not  sufficient  for  every  man  ?  What  reason  is 
there  for  convincing  every  man  of  the  pollution  of  his 
nature,  and  humbling  him  for  it,  unless  God  is  for  every 
man  "  most  loving,  gracious,  merciful,  long-suffering, 
forgiving  iniquity,  transgression  and  sin  ?  "  The  doctrine 
taught  in  this  section,  that  all  men  are  to  be  convicted  of 
sin,  like  the  doctrine  that  all  men  are  to  repent  and  to 
pra\r,  supposes  that  God  sustains  a  common  benevolent 
and  merciful  relation  to  them  all. 

Confession  xxi.  3,  declares  that  "prayer  with  thanks- 
giving, being  one  special  part  of  religious  worship,  is  re- 
quired by  God  of  all  men."  How  could  God  require 
prayer  from  every  man,  if  he  were  not  disposed  to  hear 
the  prayer  of  every  man  ?  And  does  not  this  imply  that 
he  loves  the  soul  of  every  man  ?  The  duty  of  prayer  sup- 
poses a  corresponding  kind  and  gracious  feeling  in  God 
that  prompts  him  to  answer  it ;  that  "  he  is  the  hearer  of 
praj'er,  and  that  unto  him  all  flesh  should  come."  In 
order  to  make  out  his  "offensive  doctrine,"  the  reviser 
must  explain  this  section  by  appending  to  it :  "  Though 


28  CALVINISM  : 

God  requires  prayer  from  all  men,  lie  is  the  hearer  of 
prayer  for  only  the  elect." 

Confession  vii.  3,  declares  that  "man  by  his  fall  hav- 
ing made  himself  incapable  of  life  by  that  (legal)  cove- 
nant, the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  commonly 
called  the  covenant  of  grace:  wherein  he  freely  offered  to 
sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ,  requiring  of 
them  faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved,  and  promising 
to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  unto  life,  his  Holy 
Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe."  Two 
distinct  and  different  things  are  mentioned  here:  (a)  an 
offer  of  salvation  ;  (b)  a  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
make  the  unwilling  sinner  willing  to  accept  it.  The  num- 
ber of  those  to  whom  the  offer  of  salvation  is  made  is  un- 
limited; of  those  to  whom  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  to 
"make  them  willing"  is  made,  is  limited  by  "ordination 
to  life"  or  election.  It  is  clear  that  God  may  desire  that 
to  be  done  by  man  under  the  influence  of  his  common 
grace  in  the  common  call,  which  he  may  not  decide  and 
purpose  to  make  him  do  by  the  operation  of  his  special 
grace  in  the  effectual  call.  His  desire  that  sinners  would 
hear  his  universal  call  to  repentance  may  be,  and  is  un- 
limited ;  but  his  purpose  to  overcome  their  unwillingness 
and  incline  them  to  repentance  may  be,  and  is  limited. 
God  offers  Christ's  sacrifice  to  every  man,  without  excep- 
tion, and  assures  him  that  if  he  will  trust  in  it  he  shall  be 
saved,  and  gives  him  common  grace  to  help  and  encour- 
age him  to  believe.  This  is  a  proof  that  God  loves  his  soul 
and  desires  its  salvation.  But  God  does  not,  in  addition 
to  this  universal  offer  of  mercy,  promise  to  overcome  every 
man's  aversion  to  believe  and  repent  and  his  resistance 
of  common  grace.  Election  and  pretention  have  no  ref- 
erence to  the  offer  of  salvation  or  to  common  grace.  They 
relate  only  to  special  grace  and  the  effectual  application  of 


PURE   AND    MIXED  29 

Christ's  sacrifice.  The  universal  offer  of  mercy  taught  in 
this  section  evinces  the  universality  of  God's  compassion 
towards  sinners. 

Larger  Catechism,  63,  declares  that  "  the  ministry  of  the 
gospel  testifies  that  whosoever  believes  in  Christ  shall  be 
saved,  and  excludes  none  that  will  come  unto  him."  The 
reference  here  is  not,  to  the  members  of  the  visible  Church, 
as  one  reviser  contends  who  denies  that  the  universal  offer 
is  in  this  section,  because  the  persons  spoken  of  are  those 
who  have  not  yet  believed  in  Christ,  and  have  not  yet 
come  to  him.  The  motive  is  held  out  to  such  persons, 
that  if  they  will  believe  and  come,  they  shall  be  saved  by 
the  infinite  and  universal  mercy  of  God  which  "  excludes 
none  that  will  come  unto  him." 

With  what  show  of  reason  can  it  be  said  that  a  symbol 
containing  such  declarations  as  these  respecting  the  nature 
and  attributes  of  God,  his  requirement  that  every  man 
confess  sin  to  him,  repent  of  it,  pray  for  its  forgiveness 
and  trust  in  his  mercy,  contains  no  announcement  of  his 
infinite  love  and  compassion  ?  This  great  and  blessed 
truth  is  worked  and  woven  all  through  the  Standards,  as 
the  doctrines  of  the  Divine  existence  and  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  are  through  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is  nonsense 
without  these  latter,  and  the  Confession  is  nonsense  with- 
out the  formei-. 

The  Westminster  creed  is  being  wounded  in  the  house 
of  its  friends.  To  a  spectator  it  appears  amazing  that  so 
many  who  have  "  received  and  accepted"  it  as  teaching 
"the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures" 
should  charge  so  many  and  so  great  errors  upon  it.  If  the 
Confession  and  Catechisms  really  are  what  they  have  been 
alleged  to  be,  during  the  last  six  months,  by  some  advo- 
cates of  revision,  they  ought  not  to  be  revised  at  all,  but 
to  be  repudiated. 


30  CALVINISM 


V. 

THE  MEANING  AND  VALUE  OF  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  DECREES.1 

The  proposal  to  revise  the  Westminster  Standards  has 
brought  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Decrees  into  the  fore- 
ground. The  controversy  turns  upon  this  pivot.  Other 
features  come  in  incidentally,  but  this  is  capital  and  con- 
trolling. This  is  the  stone  of  stumbling  and  rock  of  of- 
fence.  If  election  and  reprobation  were  not  in  the  Con- 
fession and  Catechism,  probably  the  fifteen  presbyteries 
would  not  have  overtured  the  Assembly.  It  is  for  this 
reason  that  we  purpose  to  discuss  the  Meaning  and  Value 
of  the  Doctrine  of  Decrees,  so  plainly  inculcated  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  from  them  introduced  into  the  Westmin- 
ster symbol.  We  are  certain  that  the  Biblical  truth  of 
the  sovereignty  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  sinners,  and  of 
his  just  liberty  to  determine  how  many  he  will  save  from 
their  sin,  and  how  many  he  will  leave  to  their  self-will  in 
sin,  is  greatly  misunderstood  by  some  who  profess  the 
Presbyterian  faith,  and  who  describe  it  in  much  the  same 
terms  with  the  anti-Calvinist,  and  inveigh  against  it  with 
something  of  the  same  bitterness.  Though  differing 
greatly  from  one  another  in  personal  feeling  and  attitude 
towards  the  Confession,  the  conservative  and  the  radical 
reviser  nevertheless  practically  meet  together  at  this  point, 
and  while  the  former  has  no  desire  to  make  any  changes 

'By  permission,  from  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  Janu- 
ary, 1890. 


PURE    AND    MIXED  81 

in  the  doctrine  of  decrees  that  will  essentially  impair  the 
integrity  of  the  Calvinistic  system,  he  yet  unintentionally 
aids  the  radical  in  bringing  about  a  revolution  in  the  sen- 
timent and  creed  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  concerning 
one  of  the  most  distinctive  articles  of  its  belief.  Because 
revision,  be  it  conservative  or  radical,  contends  that  there 
is  more  or  less  that  is  un- Scriptural  in  the  tenets  of  elec- 
tion and  reprobation  as  they  are  now  formulated  in  the 
Standards,  and  that  they  are  bad  in  their  influence.  The 
amount  of  error  in  them,  and  the  degree  in  which  they 
are  injurious,  is  variously  stated  by  advocates  of  revision. 
But  the  general  opinion  of  this  class  is,  that  they  require 
more  or  less  amending  to  get  rid  of  certain  elements  that 
are  derogatory  to  the  character  of  God,  and  are  inconsist- 
ent with  the  Christian  redemption.  Anti-revision  denies 
this.  The  only  question  of  importance,  therefore,  in  this 
juncture,  is:  Revision,  or  Nonre vision.  And  this,  as  we 
have  said,  turns  mainly  upon  the  third  chapter  of  the 
Confession,  entitled  "  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree,"  together 
with  the  kindred  declarations  growing  out  of  this,  in  other 
parts  of  the  Standards.  It  will  therefore  be  our  aim  to 
show  that  the  doctrine  of  decrees,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
Westminster  Standards,  is  neither  un-Scriptural  nor  erro- 
neous ;  and  that  it  is  a  highly  useful  and  edifying  doctrine 
in  the  formation  of  the  Christian  character.  "We  heartily 
adopt  the  affirmation  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  that 
"  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination,  and  our  elec- 
tion in  Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable 
comfort  to  godly  persons,  and  such  as  feel  in  themselves 
the  workings  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  mortifying  the  works 
of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly  members,  and  drawing  up 
their  minds  to  high  and  heavenly  things,  as  well  because 
it  doth  greatly  establish  and  confirm  their  faith,  and  fer- 
vently kindle  their  love  towards  God." 


32  CALVINISM  : 

In  carrying  out  our  purpose,  we  shall  mention  certain 
characteristics  of  the  Westminster  doctrine  that  are  both 
Scriptural  and  rational,  and  of  great  value  both  specula- 
tively ill  constructing  the  Christian  system,  and  practically 
in  forming  the  Christian  experience. 

1.  The  lirst  characteristic  of  the  Confessional  statement 
that  we  mention  is,  that  it  brings  sin  within  the  scope, 
and  under  the  control  of  the  Divine  decree.  Sin  is  one 
of  the  "  whatsoevers"  that  have  "come  to  pass,"  all  of 
which  are  "ordained."  Some  would  have  the  doctrine 
that  sin  is  decreed  stricken  from  the  Confession,  because 
in  their  view  it  makes  God  the  author  of  sin.  The  Con- 
fession denies  this  in  its  assertion  that  by  the  Divine  de- 
cree "  violence  is  not  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature, 
nor  is  the  liberty  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  ratlier 
established."  In  so  saying,  the  authors  had  in  mind  the 
common  distinction  recognized  in  Calvinistic  creeds  and 
systems,  between  the  efficient  and  the  permissive  decree, 
though  they  do  not  use  the  terms  here.  The  latter,  like 
the  former,  makes  an  event  certain,  but  b}r  a  different 
mode  from  that  of  the  former.  When  God  executes  his 
decree  that  Saul  of  Tarsus  shall  be  "a  vessel  of  mercy," 
he  works  efficiently  within  him  by  his  Holy  Spirit  "  to 
will  and  to  do."  When  God  executes  his  decree  that  Ju- 
das Iscariot  shall  be  "  a  vessel  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruc- 
tion," he  does  not  work  efficiently  within  him  "  to  will 
and  to  do,"  but  permissively  in  the  way  of  allowing  him 
to  have  his  own  wicked  will.  lie  decides  not  to  restrain 
him  or  to  regenerate  him,  but  to  leave  him  to  his  own  ob- 
stinate and  rebellious  inclination  and  purpose;  and  accord- 
ingly "  the  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  was  determined,  but 
woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  he  is  betrayed"  (Luke  22  : 
22;  Acts  2:  23).  The  two  Divine  methods  in  the  two 
cases  are  plainly  different,  but  the  perdition  of  Judas  was 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  33 

as  much  foreordained  and  free  from  chance,  as  the  con- 
version of  Saul.  Man's  inability  to  explain  how  God  can 
make  sin  certain,  but  not  compulsory,  by  a, permissive  de- 
cree, is  no  reason  for  denying  that  he  can  do  it  or  that  lie 
lias  done  it.     Appendix,  Kote  2. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  the  Confession  excludes  the 
tenet  of  the  permissive  decree,  by  its  declaration  that  the 
"providence  of  God  extendeth  itself  even  to  the  first  fall, 
and  all  other  sins  of  angels  and  men,  and  that  not  by  a 
bare  permission''''  (Conf.  v.  4).  The  "bare  permission" 
which  the  Assembly  rejects  here  is  that  of  the  Tridentine 
theologians,  who  asserted  that  sin  arises  from  the  "  mere 
permission  "  of  God.  The  Iteformed  theologians  under- 
stood this  to  mean,  that  in  respect  to  the  fall  of' angels  and 
men  God  is  an  idle  and  helpless  spectator  (deo  otioso 
spectante),  and  that  sin  came  into  the  universe  without 
any  positive  decision  and  purpose  on  his  part.  This  hind 
of  "  permission "  implies  that  God  could  not  have  pre- 
vented sin  had  he  so  decided,  and  is  really  no  permission 
at  all ;  because  no  one  can  properly  be  said  to  permit  what 
he  cannot  prevent.  In  order  to  exclude  this  view  of 
"permission,"  the  Assembly  assert  ''  suck  [a  permission] 
as  hath  joined  with  it  a  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful 
bounding  and  otherwise  ordering  and  governing  of  [the 
sins  of  angels  and  men],  in  a  manifold  dispensation,  to 
his  own  holy  ends  ;  yet  so  as  the  sinfulness  thereof  pro- 
ceedetk  only  from  tke  creature,  not  from  God,  toko  neither 
is  nor  can  be  tke  autkor  of  sin.''''  This  last  clause  declares 
that  God's  relation  to  the  sin  which  he  decrees,  is  not  that 
of  efficiency,  but  permission.  For  if  God  worked  directly 
and  efficiently  in  angel  or  man  "  to  will,"  when  he  wills 
wickedly,  the  "sinfulness  of  sin"  would"  proceed  from 
God,"  and  God  would  be  "the  author  of  sin."  The  per- 
missive decree  is  taught  also  in  Larger  Catechism,  19. 
3 


34  CALVINISM  : 

"  God  by  his  providence  permitted  some  of  the  angels, 
■wilfully  and  irrecoverably,  to  fall  into  sin  and  damnation, 
limiting  and  ordering  that,  and  all  their  sins,  to  his  own 
glory." 

The  permissive  decree  is  supported  by  Scripture,  in  the 
statement  that  God  "  in  times  past  suffered  (elaae)  all  na- 
tions to  walk  in  their  own  ways"  (Acts  14:  16);  that 
"the  times  of  this  ignorance  God  overlooked"  (virepiSdov) 
(Acts  17:  30);  that  God  "gave  rebellions  Israel  their 
own  desire  (Psalm  78  :  29) ;  that  "  he  gave  them  their 
request"  (Psalm  100:  15).  This  phraseology  is  never 
employed  when  holiness  is  spoken  of.  The  Bible  never 
says  that  God  permits  man  to  be  holy,  or  to  act  right- 
eously. He  efficiently  influences  and  actuates  him  to 
this.  Accordingly  the  other  Reformed  creeds,  like  the 
Westminster,  mark  the  difference  between  God's  relation 
to  holiness  and  sin.  The  Second  Helvetic,  Ch.  viii.,  says : 
"  Quotiescunque  Dens  aliquid  raali  in  Scriptura  facere 
dicitur  atque  videtur,  non  ideo  dicitnr,  quod  homo  malum 
non  faciat,  sed  quod  Dens  fieri  sinat  et  non  prohibeat, 
justo  suo  judicio,  qui  prohibere  potuisset,  si  voluisset." 
The  Belgic  Confession,  Art.  13,  asserts  that  God's  "power 
and  goodness  are  so  great  and  incomprehensible,  that  he 
orders  and  executes  his  work  in  the  most  excellent  and 
just  manner  even  when  the  devil  and  wicked  men  act  un- 
justly. We  are  persuaded  that  he  so  restrains  the  devil 
and  all  our  enemies  that  without  his  will  and  permission 
they  cannot  hurt  us."  The  Dort  Canons,  i.  15,  teach  that 
"God,  out  of  his  sovereign,  most  just,  and  unchangeable 
good  pleasure  hath  decreed  to  leave  some  men  in  the  com- 
mon misery  into  which  they  have  wilfully  plunged  them- 
selves, and  not  to  bestow  upon  them  saving  faith  and  the 
grace  of  conversion,  but  permitting  them  in  his  just  judg- 
ment to  follow  their  own  way,  at  last,  for  the  declaration 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  35 

of  his  justice,  to  condemn  and  punish  them  forever,  not 
only  on  account  of  their  unbelief,  but  also  for  all  their 
other  sins." 

And  here  is  the  place  to  notice  the  error  of  those  who 
represent  supralapsarianism  as  differing  from  infralapsa- 
rianism  by  referring  sin  to  the  efficient  decree,  thereby 
making  God  the  author  of  it.  Dr.  Schaff,  for  example, 
asserts  that  "  Calvin  carried  the  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
decrees  beyond  the  Augustinian  infralapsarianism,  which 
makes  the  fall  of  Adam  the  object  of  a  permissive  or  pas- 
sive decree,  to  the  very  verge  of  supralapsarianism,  which 
traces  even  the  first  sin  to  an  efficient  or  positive  decree  " 
(Creeds,  i.  453).  But  both  schemes  alike  refer  sin  to  the 
permissive  decree,  and  both  alike  deny  that  God  is  the 
author  of  sin.  Supralapsarians  like  Beza  and  Gomar  re- 
pel this  charge,  which  anti-Calvinists  made  against  both 
divisions  of  the  Calvinists.  Brandt,  who  was  on  the  Ar-, 
minian  side,  so  understood  Gomar.  In  describing  the 
difference  between  Arminius  and  Gomar,  he  says  of  the 
latter :  "  Gomarus  maintained  that  it  was  appointed  by  an 
eternal  decree  of  God,  who  among  mankind  should  be 
saved,  and  who  should  be  damned.  From  whence  it  re- 
sulted that  some  men  should  be  drawn  to  righteousness, 
and  being  drawn  were  preserved  from  falling ;  but  that 
God  suffered  all  the  rest  to  remain  in  the  common  corrup- 
tion of  human  nature,  and  in  their  own  iniquities  "  (Re- 
formation in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xviii.).  Calvin, 
Inst.  III.  xxii.,  says  that  "  man  falls  according  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  Divine  providence,  but  falls  by  his  own 
fault."  '     The  difference  between  them  relates  to  an  alto- 


1  Shedd:  Dogmatic  Theology,  i.  409  (Note).  A  remark  is  in  place 
here,  upon  the  often  cited  "decretum  horribile  "  of  Calvin.  The  Di- 
vine sovereignty  in  the  salvation  of  sinners  when  properly  viewed,  in- 
spires a  solemn  and  religious  awe  before  that  Infinite  Being  who,  in  the 


36  CALVINISM  : 

gether  different  point :  namely,  the  order  in  which  the 
decrees  of  election  and  reprobation  stand  to  that  of  crea- 
tion. The  supralapsarian  asserts  that  in  the  logical  order 
of  nature  (not  of  time,  for  all  the  decrees  are  eternal),  the 
decree  to  elect  and  reprobate  certain  men  is  before  (supra) 
the  decree  to  create  them  ;  the  infralapsarian,  that  it  is 
after  (infra).  The  former  contends  that  God  begins  by 
electing  some  men  and  reprobating  others,  and  in  order  to 
execute  these  two  decrees  creates  man  and  permits  (not 
efficiently  causes)  the  fall.  The  infralapsarian  contends 
that  God  begins  by  creating  man  and  permitting  (not 
causing)  the  fall,  and  then  out  of  this  fallen  and  guilty 
race  elects  some  to  life,  and  leaves  others  to  their  volun- 
tary sin  and  its  just  penalty.  The  supralapsarian  order  is 
liable  to  the  charge  that  "  God  creates  some  men  in  order 
to  damn  them,"  because  creation  follows  from  reprobation. 
The  infralapsarian  order  is  not' liable  to  this  charge,  be- 
cause creation  does  not  follow  from  reprobation,  but  pre- 
cedes it.1     The  Westminster  Assembly,  in  common  with 

language  of  Eliliu,  "  giveth  not  account  of  any  of  his  matters  "(Job 
33  :  13).  This  is  the  meaning  of  Calvin's  "  decretum  quidem  horribile 
fateor  "  (Inst.  III.  xxiii.  7).  Those  who  quote  this  in  disparagement  of 
the  doctrine  of  predestination,  suppose  that  he  use.l  "horrible"  in  the 
modern  vulgar  sense  of  "  hateful  "  and  "  repulsive,"  as  when  persons 
speak  of  a  "horrible  stench,''  or  an  "awful  noise."  Of  course  he 
could  not  have  intended  to  pour  contempt  upon  what  he  believed  to  le 
a  truth  of  revelation,  by  employing  the  word  in  this  popular  and  some- 
what slangy  signification.  Calvin  was  a  highly  educated  classical 
scholar,  and  his  Latin  i.i  as  accurate  and  elegant  as  any  since  the  days 
of  Cicero  and  Virgil.  In  the  classical  writers,  "  horror  "  sometimes  sig- 
nifies awe  and  veneration.  Lucretius,  for  example,  describes  the  wor- 
ship of  the  gods  as  originating  in  the  "  mortalibus  insitus  horror''''  (Do 
Natura,  v.  11G4).  The  feeling  of  reverential  fear  is  expressed  in 
Jacob's  words,  "How  dreadfvl  is  this  plare  !  "  (Gen.  28  :17).  In  this 
sense  of  the  word,  the  doctrine  of  predestination  might  be  called  "a 
dreadful  decree,"  without  disparaging  it  in  the  least. 

1  The  Arminian  Remonstrants  stated  the  difference  between  the  two 


PURE   AND   MIXED  37 

the  Calvinistic  creeds  previously  made,  adopted  the  infra- 
lapsarian  order,  though  some  theologians,  like  the  elder 
Hodge,  find  a  concession  to  the  snpralapsarians  in  some  of 
their  phraseology. 

The  doctrine  of  the  permissive  decree  has  great  value 
in  two  respects:  (a)  In  taking  sin  out  of  the  sphere  of 
chance,  (b)  In  explaining  the  tenet  of  pretention,  or 
"  foreordination  to  everlasting  death." 

First,  by  the  permissive  decree,  sin  is  brought  within 
the  Divine  plan  of  the  universe,  and  under  the  Divine 
control.  Whatever  is  undecreed  must  be  by  Lap-hazard 
and  accident.  If  sin  does  not  occur  by  the  Divine  pur- 
pose and  permission,  it  occurs  by  chance.  And  if  sin  oc- 
curs by  chance,  the  deity,  as  in  the  ancient  pagan  theolo- 
gies, is  limited  and  hampered  by  it.  He  is  not  "  God 
over  all."  Dualism  is  introduced  into  the  theory  of  the 
universe.  Evil  is  an  independent  and  uncontrollable  prin- 
ciple. God  governs  only  in  part.  Sin  with  all  its  effects 
is  beyond  his  sway.  This  dualism  God  condemns  as  er- 
ror, in  his  words  to  Cyrus  by  Isaiah,  "  I  make  peace  and 
create  evil  ;  "  and  in  the  words  of  Proverbs  16  :  4,  "  The 
Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself  ;  yea,  even  the 
wicked  for  the  day  of  evil."  "  We  believe,1'  says  the  Bel- 
divisions  of  Calvinists  as  follows:  "Our  opponents  teach,  First,  that 
God,  as  some  [i.e.,  snpralapsarians]  assert,  has  ordained  hy  an  eternal 
and  irresistible  decree  some  from  among  men,  whom  he  does  not  con- 
sider as  created  much  less  as  fallen,  to  eternal  life,  and  s  mie  to  ever- 
lasting perdition,  without  any  regard  to  their  obedience  or  disobedience, 
in  order  to  exert  both  his  justice  and  his  mercy.  Secondly,  that  God, 
as  others  [i.e.,  infralapsarians]  teach,  considers  mankind  not  only  as 
created  but  fallen  in  Adam,  and  consequently  as  obnoxious  to  the  curse  ; 
from  which  fall  and  destruction  he  has  determined  to  release  some,  and 
save  them  as  instances  of  his  mercy,  and  to  leave  others  under  the 
curse  for  examples  of  his  justice,  without  any  regard  to  be'ief  or  unbe- 
lief1' (Brandt:  Reformation  in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xix). 


38  CALVINISM  : 

gic  Confession,  Art.  13,  ';  that  God  after  lie  had  created 
all  things  did  not  forsake  them,  or  give  them  up  to  for- 
tune or  chance,  but  that  he  rules  and  governs  them  ac- 
cording to  his  holy  will,  so  that  nothing  happens  in  this 
world  without  his  appointment ;  nevertheless,  God  neither 
is  the  author  of,  nor  can  be  charged  with,  the  sins  which 
are  committed." 

Secondly,  by  the  permissive  decree,  the  pretention  of 
some  sinners  and  thereby  their  "  foreordination  to  ever- 
lasting death  "  is  shown  to  be  rational  as  well  as  Scriptu- 
ral, because  God,  while  decreeing  the  destiny  of  the  non- 
elect,  is  not  the  author  of  his  sin  or  of  his  perdition. 
Pretention  is  a  branch  of  the  permissive  decree,  and 
stands  or  falls  with  it.  Whoever  would  strike  the  doc- 
trine of  pretention  from  the  Standards,  to  be  consistent 
must  strike  out  the  general  doctrine  that  sin  is  decreed. 
If  God  could  permissively  decree  the  fall  of  Adam  and 
his  posterity  without  being  the  cause  and  author  of  it,  he 
can  also  permissively  decree  the  eternal  death  of  an  in- 
dividual sinner  without  being  the  cause  and  author  of  it. 
In  pretention,  God  repeats,  in  respect  to  an  individual, 
the  act  which  he  performed  in  respect  to  the  race.  He 
permitted  the  whole  human  species  to  fall  in  Adam  in 
such  a  manner  that  they  were  responsible  and  guilty  for 
the  fall,  and  he  permits  an  individual  of  the  species  to 
remain  a  sinner  and  to  be  lost  by  sin,  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  sinner  is  responsible  and  guilty  for  this. 

The  Westminster  Standards,  in  common  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic  creeds  generally,  begin  with  affirming  the  univer- 
sal sovereignty  of  God  over  his  entire  universe  :  over 
heaven,  earth,  and  hell  ;  and  comprehend  all  beings  and 
all  events  under  his  dominion.  Nothing  comes  to  pass 
contrary  to  his  decree.  Nothing  happens  by  chance. 
Even  moral  evil,  which  he  abhors  and  forbids,  occurs  by 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  39 

"  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God  ;  " 
and  yet  occurs  tlirongh  the  agency  of  the  unforced  and 
self-determining  will  of  man  as  the  efficient. 

Why  should  such  a  tenet  as  this,  taught  by  Scripture 
and  supported  by  reason,  be  stricken  out  of  the  Confes- 
sion ;  or  if  not  stricken  out,  so  minimized  as  to  declare 
that  God  decrees  holiness  but  not  sin,  elects  but  does  not 
pass  by  ?  On  the  contrary,  why  should  it  not  be  pro- 
claimed boldly  and  everywhere,  that  above  all  the  sin, 
and  the  misery  caused  by  sin,  in  this  world  of  mankind, 
there  sits  on  the  throne  a  wise,  benevolent,  and  omnipo- 
tent Sovereign  who  for  reasons  sufficient  in  his  view 
permitted,  but  did  not  cause  or  compel,  the  fall  of  angels 
and  men,  with  the  intention  of  guiding  the  issue  of  it  all 
to  an  ultimate  end  worthy  of  himself — namely,  the  mani- 
festation of  his  two  great  attributes  of  mercy  and  justice  : 
of  mercy,  in  the  salvation  from  sin  of  "  a  great  multitude 
whom  no  man  can  number;"  of  justice,  in  leaving  a 
multitude  that  can  be  numbered  to  the  sin  which  they  love 
and  prefer,  and  its  righteous  punishment. 

2.  The  second  characteristic  of  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine of  decrees  is  the  union  of  election  and  preterition. 
It  includes  both  tenets,  and  is  consistent  in  doing  so.  The 
discontent  with  the  Confession  is  greater  upon  this  point 
than  upon  the  first  that  we  have  mentioned.  Many  do 
not  object  to  what  the  Standards  say  upon  the  abstract 
subject  of  the  Divine  decree,  who  particularly  dislike  its 
concrete  teaching  upon  election  and  pretention.  The  dis- 
crimination which  the  Confession  makes  between  sinners  ; 
the  Divine  purpose  to  save  some  and  not  all  ;  they  as- 
sert to  be  un-Biblical  and  unjust.  "  The  foreordination 
of  some  men  to  everlasting  life,  and  of  others  to  everlast- 
ing death,  and  pretention  of  all  the  non-elect,  are  equally 
inconsistent  with  a  proper  conception  of  Divine  justice," 


40  CALVINISM  : 

is  the  assertion  of  a  strenuous  advocate  of  revision.  Some 
would  strike  out  both  election  and  pretention  ;  others 
would  strike  out  pretention  and  retain  election.  We  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  one  of  these  proposals  is  as  destruc- 
tive of  the  integrity  of  the  system  as  the  other ;  that  both 
tenets  must  stand,  or  both  must  go. 

That  individual  election  is  taught  in  the  Bible  is  very 
generally  conceded.  But  individual  pretention  is  taught 
with  equal  plainness.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour 
of  sinners,  is  as  explicit  upon  this  subject  as  he  is  upon 
that  of  endless  punishment.  Upon  two  occasions  (Matt. 
13  :  14,  15  ;  John  12 :  38-40),  he  quotes  the  words  of 
God  to  Isaiah,  6  :  9,  10  :  "  Go  and  tell  this  people,  Hear 
ye  indeed,  but  understand  not ;  and  see  ye  indeed,  but 
perceive  not.  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat,  and 
make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes ;  lest  they  see 
with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
with  their  heart,  and  convert,  and  be  healed."  The 
prophet  was  instructed  to  declare  the  pretention  of  a  part 
of  Israel,  and  our  Lord  endorses  the  doctrine.  And  he 
frequently  connects  the  voluntary  and  guilty  rejection  of 
his  gracious  offer  of  mercy  with  the  eternal  purpose  and 
plan  of  God.  The  impenitence  of  Capernaum  and  of 
Chorazin  and  Bethsaida  was  guilty,  and  punishable  with 
a  punishment  greater  than  that  of  Sodom  ;  yet  these  sin- 
ners were  "  the  wise  and  prudent  "  from  whom  the  "  Lord 
of  heaven  and  earth  "  had  "hid  the  things"  of  salvation 
(Matt.  11:  20-26).  "  Many,"  he  says,  "are  called,  but 
few  are  chosen  "  (Matt.  22  :  14  ;  Luke  17  :  34-30).  With 
grief  and  tears  over  the  hardness  of  heart  and  the  bitter 
enmity  of  the  Jerusalem  sinners,  he  at  the  same  time  de- 
clares their  reprobation  by  God.  "  Upon  }'ou  shall  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  earth,  from  the  blood  of 
righteous  Abel  unto  the  blood  of  Zacharias.     Behold  vour 


PURE    AND    MIXED  41 

house  is  left  unto  you  desolate  "  (Matt.  23  :  35-38).  That 
the  Apostolical  Epistles  teach  pretention,  we  need  not 
stop  to  prove.  One  principal  objection  made  to  the  Paul- 
ine Christianity  by  its  opponents  is,  that  it  is  full  of  pre- 
destination both  to  holiness  and  sin.  The  Dort  Canons, 
I.  vi.,  enunciate  Paul's  doctrine  in  the  following  state- 
ment :  "  That  some  receive  the  gift  of  faith  from  God, 
and  others  do  not  receive  it,  proceeds  from  God's  eternal 
decree.  According  to  which  decree,  he  graciously  softens 
the  hearts  of  the  elect,  however  obstinate,  and  inclines 
them  to  believe;  while  he  leaves  the  non-elect  in  his  just 
judgment  to  their  own  wickedness  and  obduracy."  "  Unto 
yon,"  says  our  Lord,  "  it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries 
of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  but  to  them  it  is  not  given  " 
(Matt.  13:11). 

.Not  only  are  both  individual  election  and  pretention 
taught  in  Scripture,  but  both  are  necessary  in  a  creed 
in  order  to  self-consistence.  Pretention  is  the  contrary 
of  election,  and  one  of  two  contraries  necessarily  implies 
the  other.  Right  implies  wrong ;  light  implies  dark- 
ness. ~No  one  would  contend  that  there  is  light  but 
not  darkness  ;  right  but  not  wrong.  And  no  one  should 
contend  that  there  is  an  election  of  individuals,  but  not  a 
pretention.1     It  is  impossible  to  think  of  individual  elec- 

1  The  qualifying  epithet  "individual"  is  important  here;  hecause 
while  individual  election  implies  individual  pretention  as  its  contrary, 
classical  election  does  not.  If  a  whole  class  (say  dying  infants)  are 
elected,  no  individuals  of  it  are  passed  by.  The  true  contrary  to  clas- 
sical election  is  classical  pretention,  not  individual  pretention.  In  clas- 
sical election,  there  cannot  be  the  salvation  of  a  part  and  perdition  of 
a  part,  as  there  can  be  in  individual  election.  The  whole  c'ass  must 
either  be  elected,  or  else  the  whole  class  must  be  passed  by  ;  the  whole 
of  it  must  be  the  objects  of  mercy,  or  else  the  whole  of  it  must  be  the 
objects  of  justice.  All  must  be  saved,  or  else  all  must  be  lost.  No  dis- 
crimination is  possible  between  individuals,  as  is  the  case  in  individual 
election. 


42  CALVINISM  : 

tion  alone  by  itself,  or  to  teach  it  alone  by  itself.  Indi- 
vidual election  implies  and  suggests  individual  reprobation. 
The  elect  himself  (that  is,  one  who  hopes  he  is  of  the 
elect)  sometimes  fears  that  he  is  one  of  the  non-elect.  St. 
Paul  kept  his  body  under,  lest  he  should  be  a  reprobate 
"  cast  away."  That  Christian  who  denies  the  doctrine  of 
pretention,  and  does  not  sometimes  fear  that  God  may 
pass  him  by,  is  not  a  model  for  imperfectly  sanctified  men. 
If  God  does  not  elect  a  sinner,  he  must  of  course  pass  him 
by.  If  God  decides  not  to  convert  a  sinner  into  a 
saint,  he  must  of  course  decide  to  let  him  remain  a  sinner. 
If  God  does  not  purpose  to  make  Judas  Iscariot  "  a  vessel 
of  mercy,"  he  must  of  course  purpose  to  leave  him  "  a 
vessel  of  wrath."  Individual  election  without  its  anti- 
thetic pretention  is  only  one-half  of  the  circle  of  Divine 
truth.  When  God  operates  efficiently  in  the  sinner's 
heart,  to  overcome  his  resistance  of  common  grace,  and 
his  enmity  to  the  law  of  God,  this  is  election.  When 
God  does  not  work  efficiently,  but  permissive]}7  leaves  the 
sinner  to  himself,  this  is  pretention.  And  he  must  do 
one  thing  or  the  other,  in  the  instance  of  every  sinner. 
And  he* must  purpose  to  do  one  thing  or  the  other,  in 
every  instance.  And  the  purpose  is  an  eternal  one.  Con- 
sequently to  affirm  in  a  creed  the  decree  of  individual 
election,  and  deny  that  of  pretention,  is  the  height  of  ab- 
surdity. 

Accordingly,  the  Reformed  creeds  contain  both  doc- 
trines ;  sometimes  both  of  them  verbally  expressed,  and 
sometimes  pretention  implied  from  election  verbally  ex- 
pressed. Both  doctrines  are  specified  in  the  following 
symbols  :  Second  Helvetic,  Gallican,  Belgic,  First  Scotch, 
Irish,  Lambeth,  Dort,  Westminster.  Election  alone  is 
specified  in  Augsburg,  First  Helvetic,  Heidelberg,  and 
Thirty -nine  Articles.     That  the  decree  of  individual  elec- 


PURE   AND   MIXED  43 

tion  necessarily  involves  the  antithetic  decree  of  individual 
pretention,  is  evinced  by  the  fact  that  Ursinus,  one  of  the 
authors,  and  the  principal  one,  of  the  Heidelberg  Cate- 
chism, which  verbally  affirms  election  but  not  pretention, 
presents  an  elaborate  statement  and  defence  of  reproba- 
tion in  his  Christian  Theology  (Qu.  54),  composed  in  ex- 
planation of  this  creed.1 

What  is  pretention  ?  It  is  God's  passing  by  a  sinner  in 
the  bestowment  of  regenerating,  not  of  common  grace. 
All  men  are  blessed  with  common  grace.     There  is  no 

1  Dr.  Schaff,  in  the  Evangelist,  for  November  14,  1889,  asserts  that 
the  Gallican,  Belgic,  Second  Helvetic,  First  Scotch,  and  Dort  symbols, 
"are  silent  on  the  decree  of  reprobation  and  pretention. "  The  follow- 
ing extracts  from  his  Creeds  of  Christendom  show  that  this  is  an  error. 
Gallican,  Art.  12  :  "  God  calleth  out  of  corruption  and  condemnation 
those  whom  he  hath  chosen  without  consideration  of  their  works,  in 
order  to  display  in  them  the  riches  of  his  mercy  ;  leaving  (laissant)  the 
rest  in  this  same  corruption  and  condemnation,  in  order  to  manifest 
in  them  his  justice.''  Belgic,  Art.  16:  "God  is  merciful,  since  he 
delivers  from  perdition  all  whom  he  hath  elected  in  Christ  Jesus, 
without  any  respect  to  their  works  ;  just,  in  leaving  (laissant)  the  others 
in  the  fall  and  perdition  wherein  they  have  precipitated  themselves." 
Second  Helvetic,  Cap.  x.  4,  6  :  "  Though  God  knows  who  are  his,  and 
sometimes  the  fewness  of  the  elect  is  spoken  of,  yet  we  are  to  have  hope 
for  all,  and  no  one  is  rashly  to  be  numbered  with  the  reprobate.  We  do 
not  approve  of  the  impious  words  of  those  who  say :  'If  I  am  elected,  I 
shall  be  saved,  however  I  may  act  ;  if  I  am  one  of  the  reprobate, 
neither  faith  nor  repentance  will  be  of  any  use,  since  the  decree  of  God 
cannot  be  altered.'"  First  Scotch,  Art.  8:  "For  this  cause  we  are 
not  afraid  to  call  God  our  Father,  not  so  much  because  he  has  created 
us,  which  we  have  in  common  with  the  reprobate,  as  that  he  has  given 
to  us  his  only  Son  to  be  our  brother.''  Dort  Canons,  i.  15:  "Holv 
Scripture  testifieth  that  not  all,  but  some  only,  are  elected,  while  others 
are  passed  by  in  the  eternal  decree  ;  whom  God  out  of  his  sovereign 
good  pleasure  hath  decreed  to  leave  in  the  misery  into  which  they  have 
wilfully  plunged  themselves,  permitting  them  to  follow  their  own  way. 
And  this  is  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  which  by  no  means  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin  (the  very  thought  of  which  is  blasphen  y),  but  declares 
him  to  be  a  righteous  judge  and  punisher  of  sin." 


44  CALVINISM  : 

election  or  reprobation  in  this  reference.  God's  mercy  in 
this  form  and  degree  of  it  is  universal  and  indiscriminate. 
But  common  grace  fails  to  save  the  sinner,  because  .of  his 
love  of  sin,  his  aversion  to  holiness,  and  his  unbelief. 
The  martyr  Stephen's  words  are  applicable  to  every  man 
in  respect  to  common  grace:  "Ye  stiff-necked,  ye  do 
always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  7:51).  Conse- 
quently, in  order  to  save  any  sinner  whatsoever  requires  a 
still  higher  grade  of  grace  which,  in  the  phrase  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  (07),  "powerfully  determines"  his  will 
by  regenerating  it.  Here  is  where  the  Divine  discrimina- 
tion comes  in.  It  is  with  reference  to  this  kind  and  de- 
gree of  grace  that  God  says  :  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy  "  (Ex.  33  :  19  ;  Rom.  9  :  15).  And  this 
is  the  Scripture  truth  which  is  now  on  trial  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  This  is  the  particular  doctrine  which 
excites  animosity  in  some  minds,  and  which  it  is  con- 
tended must  be  cut  out  of  the  Confession  like  cancerous 
matter  that  is  killing  the  body.  Let  us  consider  the  ob- 
jections that  are  made  to  it. 

1.  It  is  objected  that  pretention  is  inconsistent  with 
the  infinite  compassion  of  God  for  the  soids  of  all  men, 
and  cannot  be  squared  with  such  assertions  as,  "As  I  live, 
saith  the  Lord,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  the 
wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from  his  way  and  live: 
turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die?  God  so  loved  the 
world  that  he  gave  his  only-begotten  Son,  that  whoso- 
ever believeth  in  him  might  not  perish  but  have  everlast- 
ing life." 

The  first  reply  to  this  is,  that  these  and  many  similar 
affirmations  of  the  Divine  pity  for  the  sinful  soul  and 
desire  for  its  salvation,  are  written  in  the  same  inspired 
volume  that  contains  such  assertions  as  the  following: 
"  Many  shall  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able.     He 


PURE   AND   MIXED  45 

hath  blinded  their  eyes  and  hardened  their  hearts,  that 
they  should  not  see  with  their  eyes,  and  be  converted, 
and  I  should  heal  them.  The  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  was 
determined  ;  but  woe  unto  that  man  by  whom  he  is  be- 
trayed. I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy, 
and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compas- 
sion. So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him 
that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  sheweth  mercy.  The  chil- 
dren being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or 
evil,  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to  election  might 
stand  not  of  works  but  of  him  that  calleth,  it  was  said, 
The  elder  shall  serve  the  younger.  The  disobedient  stum- 
ble at  the  word,  whereunto  also  they  were  appointed." 
Since  both  classes  of  passages  come  from  God,  he  must 
perceive  that  they  are  consistent  with  each  other  whether 
man  can  or  not.  Both,  then,  must  be  accepted  as  eternal 
truth  by  an  act  of  faith,  by  every  one  who  believes  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible.  They  must  be  presumed  to  be 
self-consistent,  whether  it  can  be  shown  or  not. 

But,  secondly,  there  are  degrees  of  mercy.  Because 
God  does  not  show  the  highest  degree  of  it  to  a  particular 
sinner,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  does  not  show  him  any 
at  all.  He  may  grant  him  the  mercy  of  common  grace, 
and  when  this  is  resisted  and  nullified  by  his  hostile  self- 
will  and  obstinate  love  of  sin,  he  may  decide  not  to  bestow 
the  mercy  of  special  grace,  and  yet  not  be  chargeable  with 
destitution  of  love  and  compassion  towards  him.1  Any 
degree  of  love  is  love  ;  and  any  degree  of  compassion  is 
compassion.  To  contend  that  the  Divine  love  must  be  of 
exactly  the  same  degree  towards  all  creatures  alike  or  else 

1  Man  is  compelled  to  speak  of  God's  decision  or  decree  in  this  way, 
though  strictly  there  is  no  hefore  or  after  for  him.  All  his  decrees  are 
eternal  and  simultaneous.  Yet  there  is  an  order  of  nature.  Special 
grace  supposes  the  failure  of  common  grace. 


46  CALVINISM  : 

it  is  not  love,  is  untenable.  It  is  certain  that  God  can 
feel  love  and  pity  towards  the  souls  of  all  men,  as  his 
creatures  and  as  sinners  lost  by  their  own  fault,  and  mani- 
fest it  in  that  measure  of  grace  which  "leads  to  repent- 
ance "  (Rom.  2:  4),  and  would  result  in  it  if  it  were  not 
resisted,  and  yet  not  actually  save  them  all  from  the  con- 
sequences of  their  own  action.  The  Scriptures  plainly 
teach  that  God  so  loved  the  whole  world  that  he  gave  his 
only-begotten  Son  to  make  expiation  for  "the  sins  of  the 
whole  world  ;"  and  they  just  as  plainly  teach  that  a  part 
of  this  world  of  mankind  are  sentenced,  by  God,  to  eternal 
death  for  their  sins.  The  Arminian  and  the  Calvinist 
both  alike  deny  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation,  yet 
believe  that  this  is  compatible  with  the  doctrine  of  God's 
universal  benevolence.  Both  deny  the  inference  that  if 
God  does  not  save  every  human  being,  he  does  not  love 
the  soul  of  every  human  being ;  that  if  he  does  not  do  as 
much  for  one  person  as  he  does  for  another,  he  is  unmer- 
ciful towards  him.  It  is  a  fallacy  to  maintain,  that  unless 
God  does  all  that  he  possibly  can  to  save  a  sinner,  he  does 
not  do  anything  towards  his  salvation ;  as  it  would  be  fal- 
lacious to  maintain,  that  unless  God  bestows  upon  a  person 
all  the  temporal  blessings  that  are  within  his  power,  he 
does  not  show  him  any  benevolence  at  all.  This  fallacy 
lies  under  the  argument  against  pretention.  It  is  asserted 
that  if  God  "passes  by"  a  sinner  in  the  bestowment  of 
regenerating  grace,  he  has  no  love  for  his  soul,  no  desire 
for  its  salvation,  and  does  nothing  towards  its  welfare. 
But  if  God  really  felt  no  compassion  for  a  sinner,  and 
showed  him  none,  he  would  immediately  jmnish  him  for 
his  sin,  and  the  matter  would  end  here.  The  sinner's 
doom  would  be  fixed.  Just  retribution  would  follow 
transgression  instantaneously,  and  forever.  And  who  can 
impeach  justice?      "As  all  men  have  sinned  in  Adam, 


PURE  AND   MIXED  47 

and  are  obnoxious  to  eternal  death,  God  would  have  done 
no  injustice  by  leaving  them  all  to  perish,  and  delivering 
them  over  to  condemnation  on  account  of  sin,  according 
to  the  words  of  the  Apostle  :  '  That  every  mouth  may  be 
stopped,  and  all  the  world  may  become  guilty  before 
God  ' "  (Dort  Canons,  I.  i.).  But  God  does  not  do  this. 
lie  suffers  long  and  is  forbearing  with  every  sinner  with- 
out exception.  There  is  not  a  transgressor  on  earth,  in 
Christendom  or  Heathendom,  who  is  not  treated  by  his 
Maker  better  than  he  deserves  ;  who  does  not,  experience 
some  degree  of  the  Divine  love  and  compassion.  God 
showers  down  upon  all  men  the  blessings  of  his  provi- 
dence, and  bestows  upon  them  all  more  or  less  of  the 
common  influences  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  is  mercy  to  the  souls  of  men  universally,  and  ought 
to  move  them  to  repent  of  sin  and  forsake  it.  This  com- 
mon grace  and  universal  benevolence  of  God  is  often 
spoken  of  in  Scripture.  "Despisest  thou,  O  man,  the 
riches  of  God's  goodness,  and  forbearance,  and  long-suffer- 
ing, not  knowing  [recognizing]  that  the  goodness  of  God 
leads  [tends  to  lead]  thee  to  repentance ;  but  after  thy 
hardness  and  impenitent  heart  treasurest  up  unto  thyself 
wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath  ?  "  (Rom.  2  :  -I,  5).  Here 
is  the  common  grace  of  God  enjoyed  by  men  universally, 
and  thwarted  by  their  love  of  sin,  and  obstinate  self-will 
in  sin.  But  is  God  unmerciful  and  destitute  of  compas- 
sion towards  this  man,  if  he  decides  to  proceed  no  further 
with  him,  but  leave  him  where  he  is,  and  as  he  is?  Is  all 
that  God  has  done  for  him  in  the  way  of  long-suffering, 
forbearance,  kindness,  and  inward  monitions  in  his  con- 
science, to  count  for  nothing  ?  If  this  treatment  of  the 
sinner  is  not  benevolence  and  compassion,  what  is  it?  It 
is  mercy  in  God  to  reveal  to  every  man  the  law  of  God, 
nay  even  "  the  wrath  of  God  against  all  ungodliness  and 


48  CALVINISM  : 

unrighteousness  of  men  who  hold  the  truth  in  nnriojit- 
eonsness,"  for  by  this  revelation  the  man  is  warned  and 
urged  to  turn  from  sin  and  live.  This  is  one  way  in 
which  God  says  to  the  sinner,  "Turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why 
will  ye  die?  As  I  live  1  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of 
him  that  dieth."  It  is  mercy  in  God,  and  is  so  represented 
by  St.  Paid,  when  he  "  does  not  leave  himself  without 
witness,  in  that  he  does  good,  sending  rain  from  heaven, 
and  fruitfnl  seasons,  filling  men's  hearts  with  good  and 
gladness,  and  makes  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for 
to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  determines  the 
bounds  of  their  habitation,  that  they  should  seek  the  Lord, 
if  haply  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
lie  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us  "  (Acts  14:  17;  IT: 
26,  27).  That  this  gracious  and  fatherly  interest  in  their 
souls'  welfare  is  repelled  and  nullified  by  their  preference 
for  sin  and  love  of  worldly  pleasure,  and  comes  to  naught, 
does  not  alter  the  nature  of  it  as  it  lies  in  the  heart  of 
God.  It  is  Divine  mercy  and  love  for  human  souls,  not- 
withstanding its  ill  success. 

Common  grace  is  great  and  undeserved  mercy  to  a  sin- 
ner,  and  would  save  him  if  he  did  not  resist  and  frustrate 
it.  In  and  by  it,  "  God  commandeth  all  men  everywhere 
to  repent,"  and  whoever  repents  will  find  mercy.  In  and 
by  it,  God  commands  every  hearer  of  the  written  word 
to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  whoever  believes 
shall  be  saved.  The  common  grace  of  God  consists  of 
the  written,  or  in  the  instance  of  the  heathen  the  unwrit- 
ten word,  together  with  more  or  less  of  the  convicting 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Says  Hodge  (ii.  667), 
"  The  Bible  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  of  holiness,  and  of  life  in  all  its  forms,  is  present 
with  every  human  mind,  enforcing  truth,  restraining  from 
evil,  exciting  to  good,  and  imparting  wisdom,  or  strength, 


PURE   AND   MIXED  49 

when,  where,  and  in  what  measure  seemeth  to  him  good. 
In  this  sphere,  also,  lie  '  divideth  to  every  man  severally 
as  he  will.'  '  Whoever  is  in  any  degree  convinced  of 
sin,  and  is  in  any  degree  urged  by  his  conscience  to  con- 
fess and  forsake  it,  is  a  subject  of  common  grace.  And 
whoever  stifles  conviction,  refuses  confession,  and  "holds 
down  the  truth  in  unrighteousness,"  resists  common  grace. 
St.  Paul  charges  this  sin  upon  both  the  heathen  and  the 
evangelized.  Common  grace,  we  repeat,  is  great  and  un- 
deserved mercy  to  a  sinner,  and  by  it  God  evinces  his 
pity  for  his  soul,  and  his  desire  for  its  salvation.  But 
man  universally,  unevangelized  and  evangelized,  nullifies 
this  form  and  degree  o"  the  Divine  mercy,  by  his  opposi- 
tion. The  opponent  of  pretention  comes  in  here  at  this 
point,  and  contends  that  God  is  bound  to  go  yet  further 
than  common  grace  with  sinful  man,  and  subdue  his  en- 
mity by  creating  him  anew  in  the  spirit  of  his  mind  ;  and 
that  if  he  "passes  him  by,"  and  leaves  him  where  he  is, 
and  as  he  is,  he  has  no  love  for  his  soul.  The  sovereignty 
of  God  in  this  matter  of  bestowing  regenerating  grace  is 
denied.  To  bestow  it  upon  Jacob  but  not  upon  Esau, 
upon  some  but  not  upon  all,  is  said  to  be  injustice  and 
partiality. 

Scripture  denies  that  God  is  under  obligation  to  follow 
up  his  defeated  common  grace  with  his  irresistible  special 
grace.  It  asserts  his  just  liberty  to  do  as  he  pleases  in 
regard  to  imparting  that  measure  of  grace  which  produces 
the  new  birth,  and  makes  the  sinner  "  willing  in  the  day 
of  God's  power."  The  passages  have  already  been  cited. 
And  reason  teaches  the  same  truth.  Mercy  from  its  very 
nature  is  free  and  optional  in  its  exercise.  God  may  mani- 
fest great  and  unmerited  compassion  to  all  men  in  com- 
mon grace  and  the  outward  call,  and  limit  his  compassion 
if  he  please  to  some  men  in  special  grace  and  the  effectual 
4 


50  CALVINISM  : 

call.  He  may  call  upon  all  men  to  repent  and  believe, 
and  promise  salvation  to  all  that  do  so,  and  jet  not  incline 
all  men  to  do  so.  No  one  will  say  that  a  man  is  insin- 
cere in  offering  a  gift,  if  he  does  not  along  with  it  produce 
the  disposition  to  accept  it.  And  neither  should  one  as- 
sert this  of  God.  God  sincerely  desires  that  the  sinner 
would  hear  his  outward  call,  and  that  his  common  grace 
might  succeed  with  him.  He  sincerely  desires  that  every- 
one who  hears  the  message  :  "  Ho,  every  one  that  thirst- 
eth,  come  ye  to  the  waters  ;  yea,  come  buy  wine  and  milk 
without  money,"  would  come  just  as  he  is,  and  of  his  own 
free  will,  "  for  all  things  are  ready."  The  fact  that  God 
does  not  go  further  than  this  with  all  men  and  conquer 
their  aversion,  is  consistent  with  this  desire.  No  one  con- 
tends that  God  is  not  universally  benevolent  because  he 
bestows  more  health,  wealth,  and  intellect  upon  some  than 
upon  others.  And  no  one  should  contend  that  he  is  not 
universally  merciful,  because  he  bestows  more  grace  upon 
some  than  upon  others.  The  omnipotence  of  God  is  able 
to  save  the  whole  world  of  mankind,  and  to  our  narrow 
vision  it  seems  singular  that  he  does  not ;  but  be  this  as 
it  may,  it  is  false  to  say  that  if  he  does  not  exert  the 
whole  of  his  power,  he  is  an  unmerciful  being  towards 
those  who  abuse  his  common  «;race.  That  decree  of  for- 
bearance  and  long-suffering  which  God  shows  towards 
those  who  resist  it,  and  that  measure  of  effort  which  he 
puts  forth  to  convert  them,  is  real  mercy  towards  their 
souls.  It  is  the  sinner  who  has  thwarted  this  benevolent 
approach  of  God  to  his  sinful  heart.  Millions  of  men  in 
all  ages  are  continually  beating  back  God's  mercy  in  the 
outward  call  and  nullifying  it.  A  man  who  has  had 
common  grace,  has  been  the  subject  of  the  Divine  com- 
passion to  this  degree.  If  he  resists  it,  he  cannot  charge 
God   with  unmercifulness,  because  he  does  not  bestow 


PURE  AND   MIXED  51 

upon  lain  still  greater  mercy  in  the  form  of  regenerating 
grace.  A  beggar  who  contemptuously  rejects  the  five 
dollars  offered  by  a  benevolent  man,  cannot  charge  stingi- 
ness upon  him  because  after  this  rejection  of  the  five  dol- 
lars he  does  not  give  him  ten.  Any  sinner  who  complains 
of  God's  "passing  him  by  "  in  the  bestowment  of  regen- 
erating grace  after  his  abuse  of  common  grace,  virtually 
says  to  the  High  and  Holy  One  who  inhabits  eternity, 
"  Thou  hast  tried  once  to  convert  me  from  sin  ;  now  try 
again,  and  try  harder." ' 

God's  desire  that  a  sinner  should  "  turn  and  live " 
under  common  grace,  is  not  incompatible  with  his  pur- 
pose to  leave  him  to  "  eat  of  the  fruit  of  his  own  ways, 
and  be  filled  with  his  own  devices  " — which  is  the  same 
thing  as  "  foreordaining  him  to  everlasting  death."  A 
decree  of  God  may  not  be  indicative  of  what  he  desires 
and  loves.  He  decrees  sin,  but  abhors  and  forbids  it. 
lie  decrees  the  physical  agony  of  millions  of  men  in 
earthquake,  flood,  and  conflagration,  but  he  does  not 
take  delight  in  it.     His  omnipotence  could  prevent  this 

'An  advocate  of  revision  remarks  that  "the  Calvinist  is  doubtless 
right  in  saying  that  God  is  under  no  obligations  to  save  us.  Still, 
even  if  this  be  the  case,  God  may  be,  and  I  believe  is  under  obliga- 
tions to  afford  every  man  an  opportunity  to  be  saved  ;  that  he  lias  no 
right  to  '  pass  by '  anyone. "  Two  criticisms  upon  this  suggest  them- 
selves. First,  God  in  the  outward  call  docs  afford  every  man  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  saved.  To  every  evangelized  man  he  says,  "Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved."  This  is  "  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  saved."  To  every  unevangelized  man  he  says,  "  Repent  of 
thy  sins,  and  I  will  forgive  them."  This  is  "an  opportunity  to  be 
saved."  That  in  both  instances  the  opportunity  is  rejected,  does  not 
destroy  the  fact.  Secondly,  if  God  is  "  under  obligations  to  afford  the 
opportunity  to  be  saved,"  then  salvation  is  an  act  of  justice  and  the 
performance  of  a  duty.  In  affording  man  the  opportunity  to  be  saved, 
God  discharges  his  obligations.  In  this  case,  "  grace  is  no  more  grace  " 
(Rom.  9 :  6). 


52  CALVINISM  : 

suffering  in  which  he  has  no  pleasure,  but  he  decides  for 
adequate  reasons  not  to  do  so.  Similarly  lie  could  pre- 
vent the  eternal  death  of  every  single  member  of  the 
human  family,  in  which  he  takes  no  pleasure,  hut  decides 
not  to  do  so  for  reasons  that  are  wise  in  his  sight.  The 
distinction  between  the  revealed  will  and  the  secret 
will  of  God  is  a  valid  one ; '  and  the  latter  of  these 
wills  may  be  no  index  of  the  former,  but  the  exact 
contrary  of  it.  This  is  particularly  the  case  when  evil 
is  the  thing  decreed.2 

2.  Secondly,  it  is  objected  to  pretention  that  it  is  par- 
tiality. It  would  be,  if  sinners  had  a  claim  upon  God  for 
his  resreneratinii-  grace.  In  this  case  he  could  make  no 
discrimination,  and  must  regenerate  and  save  all.  Par- 
tiality is  impossible  within  the  sphere  of  mercy,  because 
the  conditions  requisite  to  it  are  wanting.  It  can  exist 
only  within  the  sphere  of  justice,  where  there  are  rights 
and  duties;  claims  and  obligations.  A  debtor  cannot 
pay  some  of  his  creditors  and  "  pass  by  "  others,  without 
partiality.  But  in  the  sphere  of  mercy,  where  there  is 
no  indebtedness,  and  no  claim,  the  patron  may  give  to 
one  beggar  and  not  to  another,  if  he  so  please,  because  he 
"  may  do  what  he  will  with  his  own" — that  is,  with  what 


1  God's  revealed  will,  or  will  of  desire,  is  expressed  in  Isa.  55:  1  ; 
Ezek.  33  :  11 ;  1  Tim.  2:4;  Tit.  2:11.  His  secret  will,  or  will  of  de- 
cision and  purpose  in  particular  instances,  is  expressed  in  Mat.  13:  11 ; 
John  6:  37,  44,  65;  Rom.  9  :  16,  18,  19. 

■  The  difference  between  will  as  general  desire  and  inclination,  and 
will  as  a  particular  volition  or  decision  in  a  special  instance,  is  seen  in 
human  action,  and  is  well  understood.  For  sufficient  reasons,  a  man 
may  decide  in  a  particular  ca«e  to  do  by  a  volition  something  entirely 
contrary  to  his  uniform  and  abiding  inclination.  He  is  uniformly 
averse  and  disinclined  to  physical  pain,  but  he  may  decide  to  have  his 
leg  amputated,  Tins  decision  is  his  "decree,"  and  is  no  index  of 
what  he  is  pleased  with. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  53 

lie  does  not  owe  to  any  one.  The  parable  of  the  talents 
was  spoken  by  our  Lord  to  illustrate  the  doctrine  of  the 
Divine  sovereignty  in  the  bestowment  of  unmerited  gifts  ; 
and  the  regeneration  of  the  soul  is  one  of  the  greatest  of 
them. 

This  is  a  conclusive  answer  to  the  charge  of  partiality 
and  injustice,  but  some  would  avoid  the  charge  by  striking 
out  the  tenet  of  pretention,  and  retaining  that  of  election. 
In  this  case,  election  becomes  universal.  If  no  men  are 
omitted  in  the  bestowment  of  regenerating  grace,  all  men 
are  elected.  This  is  universal  salvation,  because  all  the 
elect  are  infallibly  regenerated  and  saved.  And  this  is 
the  manner  in  which  the  Later  Lutheranisin  handles  the 
doctrine.  It  denies  pretention,  and  strenuously  opposes 
this  article  of  the  Reformed  creed.  If  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  after  having  adopted  pretention  for  two  centu- 
ries, shall  now  declaie  that  it  is  an  un-Scriptural  and  erro- 
neous tenet,  the  meaning  of  the  revision  will  be,  that  God 
has  no  sovereign  liberty  to  "pass  by"  any  sinners,  but 
must  save  them  all.  This  is  the  form  in  which  election 
is  held  by  Schleiermacher  and  his  school.  They  contend 
that  there  is  no  reprobation  of  any  sinner  whatsoever. 
All  men  are  elected,  because  to  pass  by  any  is  injustice 
and  partiality.  "  Calling  (vocatio),"  says  Dorner,  "  is 
universal,  for  the  Divine  purpose  of  redemption  is  just 
as  universal  as  the  need  and  capacity  of  redemption  so  that 
the  notion  of  a  Divine  decree  to  pass  oy  a  portion  of 
mankind,  and  to  restore  freedom  of  decision  only  to  the 
rest,  is  out  of  the  question"  (Christian  Doctrine,  iv.  183). 
It  is  this  form  of  IJniversalism,  which  postulates  the  offer 
of  mercy  to  all  men  as  something  due  to  them,  if  not  in 
this  life  then  in  the  next,  and  denies  that  the  regener- 
ating work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  confined  to  earth  and 
time,  but  goes  on  in  the  intermediate  state,  that  is  per- 


54  CALVINISM  : 

colating  into  the  Scotch  and  American  Calvinism  from 
the  writing's  of  one  class  of  German  divines.  Should 
the  presbyteries  reject  the  doctrine  of  pretention  they 
will  help  on  this  tendency.  A  creed  like  the  Heidel- 
berg, or  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  may  not  have  preten- 
tion verbally  stated,  and  yet  imply  it  by  its  statement 
of  election  and  by  other  parts  of  the  symbol.  But  if 
a  creed  like  the  "Westminster,  which  has  both  doctrines 
verbally  stated,  is  subsequently  revised  so  as  to  strike  out 
pretention,  then  this  tenet  cannot  be  implied.  It  is 
positively  branded  as  error,  and  rejected  by  the  revising 
Church.  If  therefore  the  presbyteries  shall  assert  that 
God  does  not  "  pass  by  "  any  sinner  in  respect  to  regener- 
ating grace,  they  will  commit  themselves  to  universal 
salvation  in  the  form  above  mentioned.  Election  will  no 
longer  be  balanced  and  limited  by  pretention,  but  will  be 
unlimited  and  universal. 

And  with  this  will  be  connected  another  fatal  error: 
namely,  that  God  is  under  obligation  to  elect  and  regen- 
erate every  man.  If  justice  forbids  him  to  "  pass  by  "  any 
sinners,  and  "ordain  them  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their 
sin,"  he  is  bound  to  elect  all  sinners  and  "  predestinate 
them  to  everlasting  life."  He  has  no  liberty  or  sover- 
eignty in  the  case.  He  cannot  say,  "  I  will  have  mercy 
upon  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  I  will  I  harden 
[do  not  soften]  "  (Horn.  9  :  IS).  This  transmutes  mercy 
into  justice.  Pardon  becomes  a  Divine  duty.  The  offer 
of  Christ's  sacrifice,  nay  even  the  providing  of  it,  becomes 
a  debt  which  God  owes  to  every  human  creature.  This  is 
the  assumption  that  lies  under  all  the  various  modes  of 
Universalism.  Sinful  men,  loving  sin,  bent  on  sin,  are 
told  that  they  are  entitled  to  the  offer  of  mercy  and  re- 
generating grace  ;  that  they  must  have  a  "  fair  opportu- 
nity "  of  salvation,  if  not  here,  then  hereafter.    Sinful  men, 


PURE   AND   MIXED  55 

full  of  self-indulgence,  confessing  no  sin  and  putting  up 
no  prayer  for  forgiveness,  and  who  have  all  their  lifetime 
suppressed  the  monitions  of  conscience  and  quenched  the 
Holy  Spirit's  strivings  with  them  in  his  exercise  of  com- 
mon grace,  are  taught  that  if  God  shall  pass  them  by,  and 
leave  them  to  the  sin  that  they  prefer,  he  is  an  unmerci- 
ful despot. 

And  here  is  the  point  where  the  practical  value  of  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  pretention  is  clearly  seen.  With- 
out it,  some  of  the  indispensable  characteristics  of  a  gen- 
uine Christian  experience  are  impossible.  Hence  it  is 
that  St.  Paul  continually  employs  it  in  producing  true  re- 
pentance for  sin,  deep  humility  before  God,  utter  self-dis- 
trust, sole  reliance  on  Christ's  sacrifice,  and  a  cheering 
hope  and  confidence  of  salvation,  founded  not  on  the  sin- 
ner's ability  and  what  God  owes  him,  but  on  God's  gra- 
cious and  unobliged  purpose  and  covenant.  This  is  the 
doctrine  which  elicits  from  him  the  rapturous  exclama- 
tion, "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  God.  For  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and 
it  shall  be  recompensed  unto  him  again  ?  For  of  him, 
and  through  him,  and  to  him  are  all  things :  to  whom  be 
glory  forever.  Amen."  This  is  the  doctrine  which  in- 
structs the  believer  to  ascribe  all  his  holy  acts,  even  the 
act  of  faith  itself,  to  the  unmerited  and  sovereign  grace  of 
his  redeeming  God,  and  with  Charles  Wesley  to  sing  : 

' '  Hangs  my  helpless  soul  on  Thee. " 

It  is  said  that  the  doctrine  of  pretention  is  not  and  can- 
not be  preached.  It  does  not  require  technical  terms  and 
syllogistical  reasoning,  in  order  to  preach  a  doctrine. 
Who  so  preaches  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  or  of  regen- 
eration, or  of  original  sin,  or  of  vicarious  atonement,  or 
of  endless  punishment  ?     The  doctrine  of  pretention  is 


56  CALVINISM  : 

preached  whenever  the  herald  proclaims  to  the  transgres- 
sor of  God's  law  that  sin  is  guilt  and  not  misfortune  ;  that 
the  criminal  has  no  claim  upon  the  pardoning  power  for 
pardon ;  that  the  Supreme  Judge  might  justly  inflict 
upon  him  the  penalty  which  his  sin  deserves;  that  his 
soul  is  helplessly  dependent  upon  the  optional  unobliged 
decision  of  his  Maker  and  Saviour ;  and  that  it  is  noth- 
ing but  God's  special  grace  in  regeneration  that  makes 
him  to  differ  from  others  who  go  down  to  perdition. 
That  these  humbling  and  searching  truths  are  taught 
more  thoroughly  at  some  times  than  others,  is  true.  That 
they  will  empty  some  pews  at  all  times,  is  true.  It  may 
be  that  they  are  less  taught  now  than  formerly  ;  and  if 
so,  this  is  not  the  time  either  to  revise  or  construct  creeds. 
But  whenever  the  Divine  Spirit  is  present  with  his  illum- 
ination, and  the  Scriptures  are  plainly  preached,  they 
come  into  the  foreground.  If  they  shall  be  revised  out  of 
the  Confession,  it  is  certain  that  they  will  be  taught  less 
and  less,  and  will  finally  disappear  from  the  religious  ex- 
perience. 

The  sinner's  acknowledgment  that  God  might  justly 
pass  him  by,  and  leave  him  in  his  resistance  of  common 
grace,  is  a  necessary  element  in  genuine  repentance. 
Whoever  denies  this,  lacks  the  broken  and  contrite  heart. 
Such  was  the  sorrow  of  the  penitent  thief:  "  We  are  in 
this  condemnation  justly;  for  wTe  receive  the  due  reward 
of  our  deeds."  Such  was  the  penitence  of  the  prodigal 
son  :  "  Father,  I  have  sinned  against  heaven,  and  am  no 
more  worthy  to  be  called  thy  son  ;  make  me  as  one  of  thy 
hired  servants."  Such  was  the  temper  of  the  leper: 
"  Lord,  if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean."  No  one 
of  these  penitents  took  the  ground  that  God  owed  him 
pardon  and  regeneration,  and  that  to  pass  him  by  and  or- 
dain him  to  the  eternal  death  which  sin  deserves  would 


TVIIVj    AND   MIXED  57 

be  an  act  dishonorable  to  God.  To  deny  God's  sover- 
eignty in  his  exei'cise  of  mercy,  is  to  set  up  a  claim  for 
salvation,  and  whoever  does  this  evinces  that  he  has  no 
true  view  of  sin  as  ill  desert,  and  no  true  sorrow  for  it  as 
such.  There  is  need  of  this  doctrine  in  all  ages,  owing  to 
the  pride  of  the  human  heart,  and  its  unwillingness  to 
bend  the  knee  and  renounce  all  merit  and  confess  all  de- 
merit before  God.  And  there  is  special  need  of  it  in  our 
age,  when  the  Christian  experience  is  defective  at  this 
point,  and  redemption  is  looked  upon  as  something  which 
God  owes  to  mankind,  and  is  bound  to  provide  for  them. 
Unless  this  important  truth  is  repristinated,  and  restored 
to  its  proper  place  in  the  consciousness  of  the  Church,  the 
current  of  Ilestorationism  will  set  stronger  and  stronger, 
and  the  result  will  be  a  great  apostasy  in  Christendom. 
This  is  no  time  to  eradicate  it  from  the  Calvinistic  creeds, 
but  on  the  contrary  to  reaffirm  it  with  confidence,  and 
defend  it  out  of  Scripture. 

Some  say  that  pretention  is  liable  to  be  understood  as 
preventing  a  sinner's  salvation,  and  would  have  an  ex- 
planation added  to  the  doctrine,  to  the  effect  that  this  is 
not  its  meaning  or  intent.  We  would  respect  the  opin- 
ion of  any  Christian  believer  who  sincerely  thinks  that 
the  language  of  the  Standards  is  unguarded,  and  who 
does  not  desire  to  change  their  doctrines  but  only  to  make 
sure  that  they  are  understood.  This  is  not  revision,  but 
explanation  •  and  a  declarative  statement  similar  to  that  of 
the  United  Presbyterians,  which  leaves  the  Confession  un- 
touched, is  the  least  objectionable  of  all  the  plans  before 
the  Presbyterian  Churches.  But  if  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that  pretention  is  by  the  permissive,  not  efficient  decree, 
what  call  is  there  for  such  a  guarding  clause  ?  How 
does  or  can  God's  decision  to  leave  a  sinner  to  do  just 
what  he  likes,  hinder  the  sinner  from  faith  and  repent- 


58  CALVINISM  : 

ance  ?  How  does  or  can  God's  purpose  to  save  another 
sinner,  prevent  this  sinner  from  smiting  on  his  breast, 
saying,  "  God,  be  merciful  to  me,  a  sinner?  "  "  It  is  not 
the  fault  of  the  gospel/'  say  the  Dort  Canons  (I.,  iii.  iv. 
9),  "  nor  of  Christ  offered  therein,  nor  of  God  who  calls 
men  by  the  gospel  and  confers  upon  them  various  gifts, 
that  those  who  are  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  re- 
fuse to  come  and  be  converted.  The  fault  lies  in  them- 
selves." There  is  nothing  causative  in  the  decree  of  pret- 
ention. John  Banyan's  statement  of  the  matter  is  plain 
common  sense.  "  Eternal  reprobation  mali.es  no  man  a 
sinner.  The  foreknowledge  of  God  that  the  reprobate 
will  perish,  makes  no  man  a  sinner.  God's  infallible  de- 
termining upon  the  damnation  of  him  that  perisheth, 
makes  no  man  a  sinner.  God's  patience  and  forbearance 
until  the  reprobate  fits  himself  for  eternal  destruction, 
makes  no  man  a  sinner"  (Reprobation  Asserted,  xi.). 
AVhatever  God  does  by  a  permissive  decree,  excludes 
causation  on  his  part.  God  is  not  the  author  of  the  sin 
in  which  lie  leaves  the  sinner  ;  or  of  the  impenitence  to 
which  he  gives  him  over.  His  action  in  pretention  is  in- 
action, rather  than  action.  lie  decides  to  do  nothing  to 
prevent  the  free  will  of  the  sinner  from  its  own  action. 
With  what  color  of  reason  can  it  be  said  that  God  forces 
a  man  into  perdition,  when  this  is  all  he  does  to  him  ? 
that  God  /tinders  a  man  from  faith  and  repentance,  when 
he  lets  him  entirely  alone?  To  put  the  proposed  expla- 
nation and  caveat  into  the  Confessional  doctrine  of  pret- 
ention, would  be  like  writing  under  Landseer's  lions, 
"  These  are  not  sheep,"  or  under  Paul  Potter's  bull, 
"  This  is  not  a  horse." 

The  pretention  of  a  sinner  is  not  his  exclusion  from 
salvation.  Exclusion  is  a  positive_act ;  but  pretention  is 
a   negative  one.      When   God   gives  special   regenerating 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  59 

grace  to  only  one  of  two  persons,  lie  does  not  work  upon 
the  other  to  prevent  him  from  believing  and  repenting 
under  the  operation  of  the  common  grace  which  he  has 
bestowed  upon  both  alike.  He  merely  leaves  the  other 
to  his  own  free  will  to  decide  the  matter  ;  assuring  him 
that  if  he  repents  he  will  forgive  him  ;  that  if  he  believes 
he  will  save  him.  The  bestowment  of  common  grace 
upon  the  non-elect  shows  that  non-election  does  not  ex- 
clude from  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  Divine  efficiency, 
because  common  grace  is  not  only  an  invitation  to  believe 
and  repent,  but  an  actual  help  towards  it ;  and  a  help  that 
is  nullified  solely  by  the  resistance  of  the  non-elect,  and 
not  by  anything  in  the  nature  of  common  grace,  or  by 
any  preventive  action  of  God.  The  fault  of  the  failure 
of  common  grace  to  save  the  sinner,  is  chargeable  to  the 
sinner  alone;  and  he  has  no  right  to  plead  a  fault  of  his 
own  as  the  reason  why  he  is  entitled  to  special  grace.  It 
is  absurd  for  him  to  contend  that  God  has  no  right  to  re- 
fuse him  regenerating  grace,  because  he  has  defeated  the 
Divine  mercy  in  common  grace.  The  true  way  out  of  the 
difficulty  for  the  sinner  is,  not  to  demand  regenerating 
grace  as  a  debt  by  denying  that  God  has  the  right  to 
withhold  it,  but  to  confess  the  sinful  abuse  and  frustra- 
tion of  common  grace,  and  to  cry  with  the  leper  :  "  Lord, 
if  thou  wilt,  thou  canst  make  me  clean." 

Having  thus  demonstrated  the  Scriptural  and  self-con- 
sistent character  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees  as  contained  in 
the  Westminster  Standards,  we  turn  now  to  consider  two 
erroneous  conclusions  that  are  drawn  from  it,  which  are 
urged  as  reasons  for  their  revision  :  First,  that  it  shuts 
out  the  entire  heathen  world  from  Christ's  redemption  ; 
and,  second,  that  it  implies  the  damnation  of  a  part  of 
those  who  die  in  infancy. 

Some  advocates  of  revision  seem,  unintentionally  prob- 


60  CALVINISM  : 

ably,  to  load  down  the  Confession  with  faults  not  belong- 
ing to  it.  They  put  the  worst  interpretation  upon  its 
terms  and  phraseology  ;  insist  that  its  defenders  have  no 
right  to  its  necessary  implications  and  natural  inferences 
in  determining  what  it  really  means  ;  and  that  an  analytic 
and  positive  affirmation  of  every  particular  point  must 
be  found  in  it.  Interpreting  in  this  prejudiced  manner, 
they  assert  that  the  Standards  do  not  declare  the  universal 
love  and  compassion  of  God  ;  that  they  teach  that  God 
creates  some  men, in  order  to  damn  them  ; '  that  their  doc- 
trine of  election  discourages  ministers  from  making  the 
universal  offer  of  Christ's  salvation,  and  hinders  sinners 
from  accepting  it ;  and  that  he  who  adopts  them  as  they 
read  cannot  consistently  believe  that  any  of  the  heathen 
are  saved,  and  that  no  dying  infants  are  lost.  The}7  carry 
a  wrong  idea  of  election  and  reprobation  into  their  exege- 
sis of  the  Standards.  They  suppose  that  these  necessarily 
imply  that  only  a  very  few  are  elected,  and  that  very  many 
are  reprobated.  But  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of 
either  election  or  pretention,  that  determines  the  number 
of  each  ;  nothing  that  implies  that  the  elect  must  be  the 
minority,  and  the  non-elect  the  majority,  or  the  converse. 

1  A  false  exegesis  of  Romans  9  :  20  is  sometimes  employed  to  proye 
that  God  creates  men  sinners.  "  Shall  the  thing  formed  (irAatr^a)  say 
to  him  that  formed  (irKiffavri.)  it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  "  does 
not  mean,  "  Shall  the  thing  created  say  to  him  that  created  it,  Why  hast 
thou  created  me  thus  ?  "  Creation  ex  aihilo  would  require  ktIo-is,  not 
■rrAafffMa.  The  latter  term  denotes  only  the  formative  act  of  a  moulder, 
not  the  supernatural  act  of  a  creator.  The  whole  sinful  mass  of  man- 
kind whom  God  created  holy,  have  hecome  sinful  hy  their  own  act,  and 
lie  in  his  hand  like  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  potter.  Compare  Isa.  29  : 
10  ;  45  :  9.  The  potter,  as  such,  does  not  give  the  clay  its  properties, 
hut  merely  shapes  the  clay  into  vessels  of  honor  or  dishonor  as  he 
pleases.  Says  Hodge,  in  loco,  "  It  is  to  he  home  in  mind,  that  Paul 
does  not  here  speak  of  the  right  of  God  over  his  creatures  as  creatures, 
hut  as  sinful  creatures."     Compare  Shedd  :   On  Romans,  9  :  20. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  61 

The  size  of  each  circle  depends  upon  the  will  of  him  who 
draws  it.  God,  conceivably,  might  have  elected  the  whole 
human  family  without  an  exception,  as  Schleiermacher 
says  he  did.  Or,  conceivably,  he  might  have  reprobated 
the  whole  human  family,  because  he  was  not  in  justice 
obliged  to  save  it.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  elec- 
tion that  makes  it  inapplicable  to  the  heathen,  or  of  pret- 
ention. God  may  elect  and  regenerate  a  heathen  if  he 
please,  or  he  may  leave  him  in  the  sin  which  lie  loves. 
And  the  same  is  true  of  the  ideas  of  election  and  preten- 
tion as  related  to  dying  infants.  Since  everything  in  this 
matter  depends  wholly  upon  the  sovereign  will  of  God,  he 
m&y  regulate  his  choice  as  he  'pleases.  lie  may  choose 
dying  infants  as  individuals,  as  he  does  adults  ;  or  he  may 
choose  them  as  a  class.  And  he  might  reject  dying  in- 
fants as  individuals,  as  he  does  adults  ;  or  he  might  reject 
them  as  a  class.  For  since  infants  like  adults  have  a  sin- 
ful nature,  and,  in  the  phrase  of  the  Auburn  Declaration, 
"  in  order  to  be  saved,  need  redemption  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  and  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Ghost,"  they  re- 
quire the  exercise  of  unmerited  mercy,  which  on  grounds 
of  justice  might  be  withheld. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  determine  from  the  mere  idea  of 
election  how  many  arc  elected,  or  from  that  of  pretention 
how  many  are  passed  by.  This  question  can  bo  answered 
only  by  God  himself,  and  this  answer,  so  far  as  he  has 
vouchsafed  to  give  it,  is  contained  in  his  word.  That 
the  Scriptures  plainly  teach  that  the  total  result  of  Christ's 
redemption  will  be  a  triumphant  victory  over  the  king- 
dom of  Satan,  and  that  the  number  of  the  redeemed  will 
be  vastly  greater  than  that  of  the  lost,  we  shall  assume. 
It  is  also  plainly  taught  in  Scripture,  that  God's  ordinary 
method  is  to  gather  his  elect  from  the  evangelized  part  of 
mankind.      Does   Scripture  also  furnish  ground   for  the 


62  CALVINISM  : 

belief,  that  God  also  gathers  some  of  his  elect  by  an  ex- 
traordinary method  from  among  the  imevangelized,  and 
without  the  written  word  saves  some  adult  heathen  "  by 
the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ? "  We  contend  that  the  Confession  so  under- 
stands the  Scriptures,  in  its  declaration  that  there  are  some 
"  elect  persons  [other  than  infants]  who  are  incapable  of 
being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word."  To 
refer  the  "  incapacity  "  here  spoken  of  to  that  of  idiots 
and  insane  persons,  is  an  example  of  the  unnatural  exe- 
gesis of  the  Standards  to  which  we  have  alluded.  The 
hypothesis  that  the  Confession  teaches  that  there  are  elect 
and  non-elect  idiots,  and  elect  and  non-elect  onaniacs,  is 
remarkable.  It  is  incredible  for  two  reasons.  First, 
idiots  and  maniacs  are  not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as 
such  are  neither  damnable  nor  salvable.  They  would  be 
required  to  be  made  rational  and  sane,  before  they  could 
be  classed  with  the  rest  of  mankind.  It  is  utterly  im- 
probable that  the  Assembly  took  into  account  this  very 
small  number  of  individuals  respecting  whose  destiny  so 
little  is  known.  It  would  be  like  taking  into  account 
abortions  and  untimely  births.  Secondly,  these  "  elect 
persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word,"  are  contrasted  in  the  imme- 
diate context  with  "  others  not  elected,  who  although 
they  may  be  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word  never 
truly  come  to  Christ ; "  that  is  to  say,  they  are  contrasted 
with  rational  and  sane  adults  in  evangelized  regions.  But 
idiots  and  maniacs  could  not  be  put  into  such  a  contrast. 
Tiie  "  incapacity "  therefore  must  be  that  of  circum- 
stances, not  of  mental  faculty.  A  man  in  the  heart  of 
unevangelized  Africa  is  incapable  of  hearing  the  written 
word,  in  the  sense  that  a  man  in  ]Se\v  York  is  incapable 
of  hearing-  the  roar  of  London. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  63 

Consequently,  the  Confession,  in  this  section,  intends 
to  teach  that  there  are  some  unevangelized  men  who  are 
"  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit " 
without  "  the  ministry  of  the  written  word,"  and  who 
differ  in  this  respect  from  evangelized  men  who  are  re- 
generated in  connection  with  it.  There  are  these  two 
classes  of  regenerated  persons  among  God's  elect.  They 
are  both  alike  in  being  born,  "  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God." 
They  are  both  alike  in  respect  to  faith  and  repentance, 
because  these  are  the  natural  and  necessary  effects  of  re- 
generation. Both  alike  feel  and  confess  sin  ;  and  both 
alike  hope  in  the  Divine  mercy,  though  the  regenerate 
heathen  lias  not  yet  had  Christ  presented  to  him.  As 
this  is  the  extraordinary  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  little 
is  said  bearing  upon  it  in  Scripture.  But  something  is 
said.  God?s  promise  to  Abraham  was,  that  in  him  should 
"all  the  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed  "  (Gen.  12:3). 
St.  Paul  teaches  that  "  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are 
of  Israel"  (Rom.  9  :  (V) ;  and  that  "they  which  are  of 
faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham  "  (Gal.  3 :  7). 
Our  Lord  affirms  that  u  many  shall  come  from  the  east 
and  west,  the  north  and  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven"  (Matt.  8:11).  Christ  saw  both  penitence  and 
faith  in  the  unevangelized  centurion,  respecting  whom  he 
said,  "  I  have  not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel  " 
(Matt.  8:  5-10).  The  faith  of  the  "woman  of  Canaan," 
an  alien  and  stranger  to  the  Jewish  people  and  covenant, 
was  tested  more  severely  than  that  of  any  person  who 
came  to  him  in  the  days  <f  f.  his  flesh,  and  of  it  the  gra- 
cious Redeemer  exclaimed,  u  O  woman,  great  is  thy  faith  ! " 
These  two  classes  of  the  regenerate  have  their  typical 
heads  in  Scripture.      Says  Kurtz,  "  Of  those  who    are 


64  CALVINISM  : 

blessed  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  Naomi  represents  the 
people  of  God  who  are  to  proceed  from  the  ancient  peo- 
ple of  the  covenant,  and  Ruth  represents  those  proceed- 
ing from  the  heathen  world."  That  the  Church  is  not 
to  expect  and  rely  upon  this  extraordinary  work  of  the 
Spirit,  it  is  needless  to  say.  That  this  work  is  extensive, 
and  the  number  of  saved  unevangelized  adults  is  great, 
cannot  be  affirmed.  But  that  all  the  adult  heathen  are 
lost  is  not  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  or  of  the  "Westmin- 
ster Standards. 

The  declaration  in  Confession  x.  4,  and  Larger  Cate- 
chism, 60,  does  not  refer  at  all  to  the  heathen  as  such, 
hut  only  to  a  certain  class  of  persons  to  be  found  both 
in  Christendom  and  heathendom,  and  probably  more 
numerously  in  the  former  than  in  the  latter.  The  "  men 
not  professing  the  Christian  religion "  are  those  who 
reject  it,  either  in  spirit,  or  formally  and  actually ;  that 
is  to  say,  legalists  of  every  age  and  nation,  evangelized 
or  unevangelized,  who  expect  future  happiness  by  fol- 
lowing  "  the  light  of  nature  "  and  reason,  and  the  ethical 
"  religion  they  do  profess,"  instead  of  by  confessing  sin 
and  hoping  in  the  Divine  mercy.  The  Jewish  Pharisee, 
the  Roman  Julian  and  Antoninus,  the  self-satisfied  Buddh- 
ist sage  following  the  "  light  of  Asia,"  the  Mohamme- 
dan saint  despising  Christianity,  the  English  Hume  and 
Mill,  all  of  every  race  and  clime  who  pride  themselves 
on  personal  character  and  morality,  and  lack  the  humility 
and  penitence  that  welcome  the  gospel,  are  the  class 
spoken  of  in  these  declarations.  They  press  no  more, 
and  probably  less,  upon  the  heathen  than  upon  the 
Christian  world  ;  because  the  most  hostile  and  intense 
rejection  of  the  doctrines  of  grace  is  to  be  found  in  Chris- 
tian countries,  rather  than  in  Pagan.  They  do  not  shut 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  any  heathen  who  lias  the 


PURE    AND   MIXED  G5 

spirit  of  the  publican,  but  do  shut  out  every  heathen  and 
every  nominal  Christian  who  is  destitute  of  it.  The 
object  of  this  section  of  the  Confession,  which  is  the 
same  as  the  eighteenth  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  is 
to  teach  that  no  human  creature,  evangelized  or  un- 
evangelized,  can  be  saved  on  any  but  evangelical  princi- 
ples ;  namely,  by  unmerited  grace,  not  by  personal  merit. 
It  is  only  another  way  of  proclaiming  St.  Paul's  doc- 
trine, that  "  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  no  flesh  shall  be 
justified." 

That  this  is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  "West- 
minster Standards  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the 
Calvinism  of  the  time  held  that  God  has  his  elect  among 
the  heathen.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession  (i.  7), 
teaches  it.  Zanchius,  whose  treatise  on  Predestination  is 
of  the  strictest  type,  asserts  it.  Witsius  and  others  sug- 
gest that  the  grace  of  God  in  election  is  wide  and  far 
reaching.  The  elder  Calvinists  held  with  the  strictest 
rigor  that  no  man  is  saved  outside  of  the  circle  of  election 
and  regeneration,  but  they  did  not  make  that  circle  to  be 
the  small,  narrow,  insignificant  circumference  which  their 
opponents  charge  upon  them.  And  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  differed  from  the 
Calvinism  of  the  time. 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  subject  of  "  elect  infants." 
There  is  no  dispute  that  the  Confession  teaches  that  there 
are  "  elect  dying  infants."  Does  it  also  teach  that  there 
are  "  non-elect  dying  infants  ?  "  In  other  words,  does 
the  phrase  "elect  infants"  imply  that  there  are  "non- 
elect  infants,"  as  the  phrase  "elect  adults"  does  that 
there  are  "non-elect  adults?"  This  depends  upon 
whether  the  cases  are  alike  in  all  particulars.  The  argu- 
ment is  from  analogy,  and  analogical  reasoning  requires 
a  resemblance  and  similarity  upon  which  to  rest.     But  the 


6G  CALVINISM  : 

Confession  directs  attention  to  a  great  and  marked  diver- 
sity between  infant  and  adult  regeneration,  which  sets  off 
the  two  classes  from  one  another,  making  some  things 
true  of  one  that  are  not  of  the  other.  The  Confession 
points  at  and  signalizes  the  striking  difference  in  the 
manner  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  operates,  in  each  in- 
stance. Infants  are  incapable  of  the  outward  call  and 
common  grace  ;  adults  are  capable  of  both.  Consequent- 
ly an  elect  infant  dying  in  infancy  is  "  regenerated  by 
Christ,  through  the  Spirit,"  without  the  outward  call  and 
common  grace  ;  but  an  elect  adult  is  "  regenerated  by 
Christ  through  the  Sprit,"  in  connection  with  the  ex- 
ternal call  and  common  grace,  and  after  both  have  been 
frustrated  by  him.  Election  and  non-election  in  the  case 
of  adults  is  the  selection  of  some  and  omission  of  others 
who  are  alike  guilty  of  resisting  the  ordinary  antecedents 
of  regeneration.  Election  in  the  case  of  dying  infants 
is  wholly  apart  from  this.  There  being  this  great  dis- 
similarity between  the  two  classes,  it  does  not  follow 
that  every  particular  that  is  true  of  one  must  be  of  the 
other ;  that  because  election  is  individual  in  the  instance 
of  adults  it  must  necessarily  be  so  in  that  of  infants  ; 
that  because  adults  are  not  elected  as  a  class  infants  can- 
not be.  The  state  of  things  in  which  the  regeneration  of 
an  adult  occurs,  namely  after  conviction  of  sin  and  more 
or  less  opposition  to  the  truth,  is  entirely  diverse  from 
that  in  which  the  regeneration  of  a  dying  infant  occurs ; 
namely,  in  unconsciousness  and  without  conviction  of  sin. 
The  only  form  of  grace  that  is  possible  to  the  dying 
infant  is  regenerating  grace,  and  the  only  call  possible 
is  the  effectual  call.  If  therefore  God  manifests  any 
grace  at  all  to  the  dying  infant,  it  must  be  special  and 
saving ;  and  if  he  call  him  at  all,  he  must  call  him  effect- 
ually. 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  G7 

Now,  since  the  authors  of  the  Confession  have  them- 
selves distinctly  specified  such  a  peculiar  feature  in  the 
regeneration  of  the  dying  infant,  it  is  plain  that  they  re- 
garded it  as  differing  in  some  respects  from  that  of  adults, 
and  intended  to  disconnect  it  from  that  of  adults  and 
consider  it  by  itself.  For  why  should  they  take  pains, 
when  speaking  of  elect  infants,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  "  Holy  Ghost  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how 
he  pleaseth,"  if  they  did  not  mean  to  signalize  the  ex- 
traovdinariness  of  the  Divine  action  in  infant  regenera- 
tion ?  And  if  infant  regeneration  is  extraordinary  in  not 
having  been  preceded  by  the  usual  antecedents  of  common 
grace  and  the  outward  call,  why  may  it  not  be  extraordi- 
nary in  being  universal  and  not  particular?  that  of  a  class 
and  not  of  individuals  ?  Does  not  the  singularity  that 
distinguishes  the  infant  in  regard  to  regeneration  without 
conviction  of  sin,  suggest  that  of  electing  the  whole  class? 
But  what  is  far  more  conclusive,  does  not  the  fact  that 
the  Assembly  does  not  limit  infant  election  by  infant  pret- 
ention, as  it  limits  adult  election  by  adult  pretention, 
actually  prove  that  there  is  this  great  diversity  in  the  two 
cases  ?  Does  not  the  fact  that  the  Assembly,  while  ex- 
plicitly, and  with  a  carefulness  that  is  irritating  to  many 
persons,  balancing  and  guarding  the  election  of  adults  by 
pretention,  does  not  do  so  with  the  election  of  infants, 
show  beyond  doubt  that  they  believed  their  election  to  be 
unlimited,  and  that  no  dying  infants  are  "  passed  by  "  in 
the  bestowment  of  regenerating  grace  ?  We  have  already 
seen  that  the  j)roj>oscd  omission  of  pretention,  so  as  to 
leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults,  would  make  their 
election  universal,  and  save  the  whole  class  without  excep- 
tion. The  actual  omission  of  it  by  the  Assembly  in  the 
case  of  dying  infants  has  the  same  effect.  It  is  morally 
certain  that  if  the  Assembly  had  intended  to  discriminate 


68  CALVINISM  : 

between  elect  and  non-elect  infants,  as  they  do  between 
elect  and  non-elect  adults,  they  would  have  taken  pains  to 
do  so,  and  would  have  inserted  a  corresponding  clause 
concerning  infant  pretention  to  indicate  it.  Whoever 
contends  that  they  believed  that  pretention  applies  to  in- 
fants, is  bound  to  explain  their  silence  upon  this  point. 
Had  infant  election  been  explicitly  limited  by  infant  pret- 
ention in  the  Confession,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  any  candid  expounder  of  it  to  hold  that  it  permits  sub- 
scribers to  it  to  believe  in  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in- 
fants. But  Calvinistic  divines  for  the  last  century  or 
more  have  put  this  interpretation  upon  this  section  of  the 
Confession,  namely,  that  infant  election  is  not  individual 
but  classical,  and  we  think  they  are  justified  in  so  doing 
by  the  remarkable  omission  in  this  case.1 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  thing  looks  probable.  The  case 
of  the  adult,  in  which  there  is  both  the  outward  call  and 
the  effectual,  both  common  grace  and  regenerating,  may 
be  governed  by  the  principle  of  individuality  ;  while  that 
of  the  infant,  in  which  there  is  only  the  effectual  call  and 
regenerating  grace,  may  be  governed  by  the  principle  of 
community.  Of  those  who  have  had  the  outward  call 
and  have  rejected  it,  some  may  be  taken  and  others  left ; 
while  of  those  who  have  not  had  the  outward  call  and 
have  not  rejected  it,  all  may  be  taken,  it  is  election  in 
both  instances  ;  that  is,  the  decision  of  God  according  to 
the  counsel  of  his  own  will.  In  one  case,  God  sovereignly 
decides  to  elect  some  ;  in  the  other,  to  elect  all.     And  it 

1  Respecting  the  necessity  of  construing  the  Confession  as  teaching 
that  there  are  non  elect  infants,  Dr.  Scliaff  remarks  as  follows  :  "  The 
Confession  nowhere  speaks  of  reprobate  infants,  and  the  existence  of 
such  is  not  necessarily  implied  by  way  of  distinction,  although  it  prob- 
ably was  in  the  minds  of  the  framers,  as  their  private  opinion,  which 
they  wisely  withheld  from  the  Confession  "  (Creeds  of  Christendom,  i 
795). 


PURE   AND   MIXED  69 

is  unmerited  mercy,  in  both  instances  ;  because  God  is  not 
bound  and  obliged  by  justice  to  pardon  and  eradicate  the 
sin  of  an  infant  any  more  than  that  of  an  adult.  And 
there  is  nothing  in  the  fact  that  an  infant  has  not  resisted 
common  grace,  that  entitles  it  to  the  exercise  of  special 
grace.  In  the  transaction,  God  is  moved  wholly  by  his 
spontaneous  and  infinite  mercy.  lie  does  an  act  to  which 
he  is  not  compelled  by  the  sense  of  duty  or  of  justice, 
either  to  himself  or  to  sinners,  but  which  he  loves  to  do, 
and  longs  to  do,  because  of  his  infinite  pity  and  compas- 
sion.1 

That  many  of  the  elder  Calvin ists  believed  that  there 
are  some  non-elect  infants  is  undeniable  ;  and  that  in  the 
long  and  heated  discussions  of  the  seventeenth  century 
between  Calvinists  and  Arminians,  and  between  Calvinists 
themselves,  many  hard  sayings  were  uttered  by  individual 
theologians  which  may  be  construed  to  prove  that  man 
is  necessitated  to  sin,  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  and 
that  the  majority  of  mankind  are  lost,  is  equally  undeni- 
able. But  the  Westminster  Confession  must  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  only  what  is  declared  on  its  pages.  The 
question  is  not,  whether  few  or  many  of  the  members  of 
the  Assembly  held  that  some  dying  infants  are  lost,  but 
whether  the  Confession  so  asserts  ;  is  not,  whether  any 
Calvinists  of  that  day,  in  endeavoring  to  show  how  God 
decrees  sin,  may  not  have  come  perilously  near  represent- 
ing him  as  doing  it  by  direct  efficiency,  but  whether  the 
Reformed  and  Westminster  creeds  do  this. 

1  The  assumption  that  God  is  obliged  by  justice  to  offer  salvation  to 
all  mankind,  and  to  redeem  them  all,  precludes  all  gratitude  and  praise 
for  redemption,  on  their  part.  Why  should  they  give  thanks  for  a  favor 
that  is  due  to  them,  and  which  it  is  the  duty  of  God  to  bestow  ?  Chris- 
tians adore  "  the  riches  of  God's  grace"  because  it  is  utterly  unclaim- 
able  on  their  part,  and  unobligated  on  his. 


70  CALVINISM  : 

The  rio-or  of  the  theology  of  the  elder  Calvinists  has 
been  exaggerated.  They  took  a  wide  and  large  view  of 
the  possible  extent  of  election.  Owen  is  as  strict  as  most 
of  them.  But  in  arguing  against  the  Arminians,  in  sup- 
port of  the  guilt  and  condemnability  of  original  sin,  he 
says  :  "  Observe  that  in  this  inquiry  of  the  desert  of  orig- 
inal sin,  the  question  is  not,  What  shall  be  the  certain  lot 
of  those  who  depart  this  life  under  the  guilt  of  this  sin 
only?  but  what  this  hereditary  and  native  corruption 
doth  deserve,  in  all  those  in  whom  it  is?  For  as  St.  Paul 
saith,  'We  judge  not  them  that  are  without'  (especially 
infants),  1  Cor.  5  :  13.  But  for  the  demerit  of  it  in  the 
justice  of  God,  our  Saviour  expressly  affirmeth  that  '  un- 
less a  man  be  born  again,  lie  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.'  Again,  we  are  assured  that  no  unclean 
thing  shall  enter  into  heaven  (Rev.  21).  Children  are 
polluted  with  hell-deserving  uncleanness,  and  therefore 
unless  it  be  purged  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  they  have 
no  interest  in  everlasting  happiness.  By  this  means  sin 
is  come  upon  all  to  condemnation,  and  yet  we  do  not 
peremptorily  censure  to  hell  all  infants  departing  out  of 
this  world  without  thelaver  of  regeneration  [i.e.,  baptism], 
the  ordinary  means  of  waiving  the  punishment  due  to 
this  pollution.  That  is  the  question  de  facto,  which  we 
before  rejected  :  yea,  and  two  ways  there  are  whereby 
God  saveth  such  infants,  snatching  them  like  brands  from 
the  fire.  First,  by  interesting  them  into  the  covenant,  if 
their  immediate  or  remote  parents  have  been  believers. 
He  is  a  God  of  them,  and  of  their  seed,  extending  his 
mercy  unto  a  thousand  generations  of  them  that  fear  him. 
Secondly,  by  his  grace  of  election,  which  is  most  free 
and  not  tied  to  any  conditions  ;  by  which  I  make  no 
doubt  but  God  taketh  many  unto  him  in  Christ  whose 
parents  never  knew,  or  had  been  despisers  of  the  gospel. 


PURE   AND    MIXED  71 

And  this  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  agreeable  to  the 
Scriptures  affirming  the  desert  of  original  sin  to  be  God's 
wrath  and  damnation"  (Owen:  Arminianism,  Ch.  vii.). 
This  is  the  salvation  of  infants  by  both  covenanted  and  un- 
covenanted  mercy,  aud  Owen  maintains  that  it  is  a  tenet 
of  Calvinism.  That  he  does  not  assert  the  classical  elec- 
tion of  infants  is  true ;  but  he  asserts  the  individual  elec- 
tion of  some  infants  outside  of  the  Church. 

Such,  then,  is  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Decree.  It  is  the  common  Augustino-Calvinistic  doc- 
trine. No  part  of  it  can  be  spared,  and  retain  the  integ- 
rity of  the  system.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  inten- 
tion of  the  few  first  proposers  of  revision ;  or  whatever 
may  be  the  intention  of  the  many  various  advocates  of  it 
who  have  joined  them  ;  the  grave  question  before  all 
parties  now  is,  Whether  the  Presbyterian  Church  shall 
adhere  to  the  historical  Calvinism  with  which  all  its  past 
usefulness  and  honor  are  inseparably  associated,  or  whether 
it  shall  renounce  it  as  an  antiquated  system  which  did 
good  service  in  its  day,  but  can  do  so  no  longer.  The 
votes  of  the  presbyteries  within  the  coming  six  months 
will  answer  this  question. 


72  CALVINISM  : 


VI. 

PRETENTION  NECESSARY  TO  THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  GOD 
IN   ELECTION1 

It  is  generally  conceded  by  those  who  advocate  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Confession,  that  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in 
election  "  must  be  retained  as  a  fundamental  truth.  Sev- 
eral presbyteries  have  voted  for  revision,  with  the  explicit 
declaration  that  this  part  of  the  third  chapter  must  stand  ; 
and  they  have  at  the  same  time  voted  to  strike  out  the 
doctrine  of  preterit  ion.  Among  them  is  the  large  and  in- 
fluential presbytery  of  New  York.  With  the  highest  re- 
spect for  our  brethren  and  copresbyters,  and  with  sincere 
regret  to  be  obliged  to  differ  from  the  majority,  we  pro- 
ceed to  raise  and  answer  the  question,  Whether  the  doc- 
trine of  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  can  be  held 
unimpaired  and  in  its  integrity,  if  the  tenet  of  pretention 
is  omitted  from  "  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Scriptures." 

The  presbytery  have  declared  to  the  General  Assembly  : 

1,  That  "  they  deprecate  most  earnestly  all  such  changes 
as  would  impair  the  essential  articles  of  our  faith  ; "  and 

2,  That  "  they  desire  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession, 
after  the  first  section,  to  be  so  recast  as  to  include  these 
tilings  only  :  The  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  ;  the  gen- 
eral love  of  God  for  all  mankind  ;  the  salvation  in  Christ 
Jesus  provided  for  all,  and  to  be  preached  to  every  creat- 
ure." In  this  recasting,  they  specify  several  sections  of 
chapter   third   which  they  would  strike  out,  and  among 

1  New  York  Observer,  March  6,  1890. 


PURE   AND   MIXED  73 

them  is  the  section  which  declares  that  God  "  passes  by  " 
some  of  mankind,  and  '*  ordains  them  to  dishonor  and 
wrath  for  their  sin."  According  to  this  deliverance,  the 
presbytery  of  !New  York  supposes  that  it  can  hold  the 
doctrine  of  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  unim- 
paired and  in  all  its  essential  features,  while  denying  and 
rejecting  the  doctrine  of  pretention.  An  examination  of 
the  nature  and  definition  of  "  sovereignty,"  we  think,  will 
show  that  this  is  impossible. 

Sovereignty  is  a  comprehensive  term.  It  contains  sev- 
eral elements.  First  it  denotes  supremacy.  A  sovereign 
ruler  is  supreme  in  his  dominions.  All  other  rulers  are 
under  him.  Secondly,  sovereignty  denotes  independence. 
Says  Woolsey,  "  In  the  intercourse  of  nations  certain 
states  have  a  position  of  entire  independence  of  others. 
They  have  the  power  of  self-government,  that  is,  of  inde- 
pendence of  all  other  states  as  far  as  their  own  territory 
and  citizens  are  concerned.  This  power  of  independent 
action  in  external  and  internal  relations  constitutes  com- 
plete sovereignty "  (Political  Science,  i.  204).  Thirdly, 
sovereignty  denotes  optional powe?-  /  that  is,  the  power  to 
act  or  not  in  a  given  instance.  It  is  more  particularly 
with  reference  to  this  latter  characteristic  of  free  alterna- 
tive decision,  that  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in  election  "  is 
spoken  of.  In  his  election  of  a  sinner  to  salvation,  God 
as  supreme,  independent,  and  sovereign,  acts  with  entire 
liberty  of  decision,  and  not  as  obliged  and  shut  up  to  one 
course  of  action. 

This  is  the  common  understanding  and  definition  of 
sovereignty  as  applied  to  decisions  and  acts.  Says  Black- 
stone  :  "  By  the  sovereign  power  is  meant  the  power  of 
making  laws;  for  wherever  that  power  resides  all  other 
powers  must  conform  to,  and  be  directed  by  it,  whatever 
appearance  the  outward  form  and  administration  of  the 


74  CALVINISM  : 

government  may  pat  on.  For  it  is  at  any  time  in  the 
option  of  the  legislature  to  alter  that  form  and  adminis- 
tration by  a  new  edict  or  rule,  and  put  the  execution  of 
the  law  into  whatever  hands  it  pleases,  by  constituting 
one,  or  a  few,  or  many  executive  magistrates  "  (Introduc- 
tion, 2).  Blackstone  gives  the  same  definition  of  sover- 
eignty, when  it  is  vested  in  a  king  (Book  IL,  cli.  vii.). 
The  king  has  no  superior  to  oblige  or  compel  him  to  one 
course  of  action.  He  has  independent  and  optional 
power.  This  is  the  reason  why  a  monarchy  is  inferior  to 
a  republic,  as  an  ideal  of  government,  and  the  secret  of 
the  steady  tendency  to  the  latter  form  of  government,  in 
the  earth.  Sovereign,  supreme,  independent,  and  op- 
tional power  is  too  great  a  power  to  be  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  one  man.  Its  safest  deposit  is  in  the  hands  of 
all  the  people. 

The  pardoning  power  is  a  sovereign  power,  and  this 
implies  choice  between  two  alternatives.  If  the  gover- 
nor of  New  York  has  the  power  to  grant  a  pardon  to  a 
criminal,  but  not  the  power  to  refuse  it,  he  is  not 
sovereign  in  the  matter.  If  of  two  criminals,  he  cannot 
pardon  one  and  leave  the  other  under  the  sentence  of  the 
court,  he  is  not  sovereign  in  the  matter.  When  it  is  said 
that  in  a  democracy  the  sovereign  power  is  vested  in  the 
people,  the  meaning  is  that  the  people  have  the  right 
to  make  such  a  constitution  and  laws  as  they  please.  No 
one  would  contend  that  the  people  of  New  York  have 
sovereign  power  in  the  case,  if  they  are  obliged  to  put 
imprisonment  for  debt,  or  any  other  particular  statute, 
into  their  code.  A  "sovereignty  "  that  has  no  alternative 
is  none  at  all. 

God  is  a  sovereign,  and  the  highest  of  all.  He  may 
create  a  universe  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  Were  he  obliged 
or  compelled  to  create,  he  would   not  be   sovereign  in 


PURE   A1STD   MIXED  75 

creating.  He  may  arrange  and  order  his  universe  as  he 
pleases.  If  he  were  confined  to  but  one  order,  he  would 
not  be  sovereign  in  his  providence.  But  not  to  waste 
time  on  these  self-evident  generalities,  we  come  to  the 
case  in  hand :  the  "  sovereignty  of  God  in  election.'''1 
The  question  is,  Whether  God  is  "sovereign"  in  electing, 
regenerating,  and  saving  a  sinner,  if  he  has  no  option  in 
the  matter?  if  he  cannot  "pass  by"  the  sinner,  and 
leave  him  unregenerate,  unpardoned,  and  unsaved  ? 
One  would  think  that  such  a  question  as  this  could  have 
but  one  answer  in  the  negative,  had  not  a  majority  of  the 
presbytery  of  New  York  answered  it  in  the  affirmative. 
The  Westminster  Confession  declares  that  "  the  sover- 
eignty of  God  in  election  "  means,  that  he  may  elect  or 
pass  by  the  sinner  as  he  pleases.  The  Revised  Con- 
fession declares  that  it  means,  that  he  may  elect  him  but 
not  pass  him  by.  The  Old  Confession  declares  that  sover- 
eignty means,  that  God  may  bestow  regenerating  grace 
upon  a  sinner  who  is  resisting  common  grace,  or  may  not 
bestow  it.  The  New  Confession  declares  that  it  means, 
that  he  may  bestow  regenerating  grace  upon  him,  but 
may  not  refuse  to  bestow  it.  The  Old  Confession  de- 
clares that  sovereignty  means,  that  God  may  pardon  the 
sinner  or  not,  as  he  pleases.  The  New  Confession  de- 
clares that  it  means,  that  he  may  pardon  him  but  not 
deny  him  a  pardon. 

Now  we  ask,  What  sovereignty  has  God  in  the  salva- 
tion of  the  sinner,  if  he  has  no  alternative  in  regard  to 
election,  regeneration,  and  pardon  ?  if  eternal  justice  re- 
quires that  he  elect,  and  forbids  that  he  pass  by  ?  if 
eternal  justice  requires  that  he  regenerate,  and  forbids 
him  to  leave  in  unregeneracy  ?  if  eternal  justice  requires 
that  he  pardon,  and  forbids  him  to  refuse  to  pardon? 
To  strike  out  pretention  from  the  Confession,  is  to  de- 


76  CALVINISM  : 

clare  that  it  is  an  unscriptural  doctrine,  and  to  brand  it 
as  error.  And  to  assert  "  the  sovereignty  of  God  in 
election  "  after  having  done  this,  is  to  assert  that  an  act 
that  has  no  alternative  is  a  sovereign  act. 

But  God  himself  has  decided  the  question.  lie  asserts 
his  sovereign  right  to  optional  decision  in  the  matter  of 
human  salvation.  In  that  wonderful  description  of  his 
being  and  attributes  which  he  gave  to  Moses,  among 
other  declarations  he  says,  "  I  will  be  gracious  to  whom  I 
will  be  gracious,  and  will  shew  mercy  to  whom  I  will  shew 
mercy"  (Ex.  33  :  19).  In  this  solemn  pronunciamento 
with  which  he  prefaced  the  whole  work  of  human  salva- 
tion, he  distinctly  declares  that  he  is  under  no  obligation 
to  redeem  sinful  men,  but  that  whatever  he  does  in  the 
premises  is  of  his  own  unobliged,  free,  and  sovereign 
mercy  and  decision.  Still  more  explicitly,  in  what  is 
perhaps  the  most  terrible  passage  in  all  Scripture,  God 
asserts  that  he  will  pass  by  and  leave  in  their  sin  some 
who  have  refused  his  common  call,  and  frustrated  his 
common  grace.  "  Because  I  have  called,  and  ye  refused  ; 
I  have  stretched  out  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded  ;  but 
ye  have  set  at  nought  all  my  counsel,  and  would  none  of 
my  reproof  ;  I  also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity  ;  I  will 
mock  when  your  fear  cometh.  Then  shall  they  call  upon 
me,  but  I  will  not  answer ;  they  shall  seek  me  early,  but 
they  shall  not  find  me  "  (Prov.  1 :  24-26,  27).  God  incar- 
nate teaches  the  same  truth,  that  "  one  shall  be  taken  and 
the  other  left"  (Luke  17:  34-36).  And  St.  Paul  recites 
the  words  of  God  to  Moses,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom 
I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I 
will  have  compassion,"  as  a  conclusive  demonstration  of 
the  Divine  sovereignty  in  salvation. 

The  only  instance  of  the  retention  of  election,  and  re- 
jection of  pretention,  in  a  creed,  is  that  of  the  Cumber- 


PURE   AND   MIXED  77 

land  Presbyterians.  Oar  Arminian  brethren  are  con- 
sistent and  logical,  like  the  Westminster  Standards,  in 
teaching  both  election  and  pretention  ;  only  they  assert 
that  both  are  conditional.  Men  are  elected  because  of 
faith,  and  are  passed  by  because  of  unbelief.  There  has 
never  been  any  proposition  to  revise  pretention  out  of  an 
Arminian  creed.  Arminius,  Episcopins,  Limborch,  Wes- 
ley, and  Watson  understand  that  election  necessarily  im- 
plies the  antithetic  non-election.1  A  proposition  to  revise 
the  Confession  so  that  it  would  teach  conditional  election 
and  pretention,  would  be  self-consistent  but  anti-Calvin- 
istic;  but  the  proposition  to  revise  it  so  as  to  declare  that 
God  elects  but  does  not  pass  by  sinners,  is  neither  con- 
sistency nor  Calvinism.  If  adopted,  the  Northern  Presby- 
terian Church  will  have  an  illogical  and  mutilated  creed, 
and  will  resemble  a  wounded  eagle  attempting  to  fly  with 
but  one  wing. 

1  According  to  Brandt,  the  Remonstrants  defined  predestination  as 
follows:  "God  hath  decreed  from  all  eternity  to  elect  those  to  ever- 
lasting life,  who  through  his  grace  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  and  persevere 
in  faith  and  obedience  ;  and  on  the  contrary  hath  resolved  to  reject  the 
unconverted  and  unbelieving  to  everlasting  damnation  "  (Reformation 
in  the  Low  Countries,  Book  xxi. ). 


78  CALVINISM 


VTI. 

PRETERIT10N   AND    THE  LOPSIDED    VIEW   OF    THE   DIVINE 

DECREE 

The  doctrine  of  the  Divine  decree  is  inseparably  con- 
nected with  that  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Divine  glory, 
because  the  latter  is  the  end  and  aim  of  the  former. 
Some  Presbyteries  recommend  a  one-sided  fractional  view 
of  the  Divine  decree,  by  striking  out  reprobation  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  and  leaving  election  as  it  now 
stands.  In  order  to  determine  whether  this  view  of  the 
Divine  decree  is  Scriptural  or  rational,  it  is  necessary  to 
determine  what  is  meant  by  the  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  glory,  and  whether  it  can  be  secured  by  manifest- 
ing only  the  mercy  of  God  to  the  exclusion  of  his  justice. 

The  "  glory  of  God"  means  either  his  essential  or  his 
manifested  glory.  It  is  the  manifested  glory  that  is  in- 
tended when  the  question  is  asked,  whether  God  does 
everything  for  his  own  glory  ;  whether  in  all  his  works 
his  object  is  to  reveal  to  angels  and  men  the  intrinsic  and 
inherent  glory  of  his  being  and  nature.  One  would  sa}r, 
on  the  face  of  it,  that  this  is  no  question  at  all.  What 
else  should  God  do  anything  for,  but  to  show  that  he  is  an 
infinitely  perfect  and  good  being?  but  to  exhibit  in  vari- 
ous ways  his  natural  and  moral  qualities  ? 

1.  The  essential  glory  of  God  means  all  that  is  glorious 
in  God.  In  the  Scriptures  "  glory  "  is  a  general  term  to 
denote  the  sum-total  of  all  the  qualities  that  constitute  the 
Divine  excellence.     The  nature  and  attributes  of  God  are 


PURE   AND   MIXED  79 

the  glory  of  God.  They  make  him  a  glorious  being.  In 
this  sense  the  "  glory  of  God  "  is  only  another  name  for 
infinite  perfection  ;  only  another  name  for  the  entire  ag- 
gregate of  the  Divine  attributes.  Sometimes  the  phrase 
lias  chief  reference  to  God's  natural  attributes,  as  seen  in 
the  material  universe.  "  The  heavens  declare  the  glory 
of  God."  "  O  Lord,  our  Lord,  how  excellent  is  thy  name 
in  all  the  earth !  who  hast  set  thy  glory  above  [or  upon] 
the  heavens."  Such  texts  as  these  speak  of  the  glory,  or 
glorious  excellence,  of  God  as  displayed  in  creation  and 
providence.  Sometimes  the  principal  reference  is  to 
God's  moral  attributes,  as  seen  in  redemption.  "  I  will 
send  those  that  escape  from  them  unto  the  nations,  and 
they  shall  declare  my  glory  among  the  Gentiles."  "  De- 
clare his  glory  among  the  heathen."  In  Eph.  1  :  14, 
"The  redemption  of  the  purchased  possession  is  unto  the 
praise  of  God's  glory."  In  Phil.  1  :  11,  "The  fruits  of 
righteousness  which  are  by  Jesus  Christ  are  unto  the  glory 
and  praise  of  God."  Such  Scriptures  as  these  show  that 
the  "  glory  of  God "  does  not  mean  self-applause  but 
moral  excellence ;  and  that  when  God  is  said  to  do  all 
things  for  his  own  gloiy,  the  meaning  is  that  he  does 
them  for  the  purpose  of  revealing  in  nature  and  grace  his 
infinite  perfections.  When  therefore  the  phrase  is  de- 
fined in  accordance  with  its  use  in  the  Bible,  and  with  the 
idea  of  an  infinitely  perfect  being,  it  has  nothing  that 
should  excite  opposition.  There  is  not  the  slightest  rea- 
son for  confounding  it  with  human  vanity,  or  the  selfish 
love  of  fame  among  men. 

The  essential  glory  of  God  is  a  fixed  quantity.  There 
can  be  neither  increase  nor  diminution  of  it.  When  man 
is  commanded,  "  whether  he  eat  or  drink,  or  whatever  he 
does,  to  do  all  to  the  glory  of  God,"  it  is  not  meant  that 
his  action  can  add  anything  to  the  inherent  glory  of  God, 


80  CALVINISM  : 

and  make  him  more  glorious  intrinsically  than  he  was 
before.  In  respect  to  the  essential  glory  of  God,  neither 
angel  nor  man  can  do  anything.  But  the  intrinsic,  and 
immutable  excellence  of  God  is  capable  of  being  mani- 
fested to  angels  and  men,  and  also,  in  a  secondary  manner, 
by  angels  and  men  ;  for  when  angels  and  men  recognize 
and  acknowledge  the  glory  of  God  by  their  acts  of  obedi- 
ence and  adoration,  they  too  declare  and  set  it  forth  in  an 
inferior  degree. 

2.  Secondly,  the  essential  glory  of  God  is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  worship.  It  is  because  the  Supreme  Being 
has  this  constellation  of  attributes,  this  sum-total  of  in- 
finite perfections  which  is  grouped  under  the  name  of 
"glory,"  that  he  is  worthy  of  adoration.  If  a  single  one 
of  these  attributes  were  wanting,  the  Divine  glory  would 
be  defective ;  and  a  defective  Being  would  not  be  worthy 
of  the  hallelujahs  of  heaven.  Those  who  deny,  either 
theoretically  or  practically,  the  Divine  holiness  and  justice, 
and  affirm  only  the  Divine  benevolence  and  mercy,  muti- 
late the  Divine  nature  and  destroy  the  Divine  glory.  They 
metamorphose  the  Supreme  Being,  and  demolish  the 
completeness,  symmetry,  and  harmony  of  his  nature,  and 
render  worship  impossible.  The  grandest  of  all  music, 
the  lofty  chorals  and  anthems  of  the  Christian  Church,  the 
"  Te  Deum  Laudamus "  and  the  "  Gloria  Patri,"  sup- 
pose all  of  the  Divine  attributes,  and  are  prompted  by  the 
full-orbed  glory  of  God. 

3.  Thirdly,  since  all  of  the  Divine  attributes  go  to  make 
up  the  total  glory  of  God,  they  must  all  of  them  be  mani- 
fested if  there  is  to  be  a  complete  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  perfection.  It  is  at  this  point  that  the  defective 
view  of  the  Divine  decree  which  is  now  sought  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  Westminster  Confession  takes  its  start. 
The  reviser  of  this  class  concedes  that  the  Divine  glory  is 


PURE   AND    MIXED  81 

manifested  when  God  in  the  exercise  of  his  benevolence 
and  mercy  elects  many  sinners  to  everlasting  life,  but 
denies  that  it  is  also  manifested  when  God  in  the  exercise 
of  his  holiness  and  justice  leaves  some  sinners  to  their  own 
free  will,  and  permits  them  to  go  down  voluntarily  to 
eternal  death.  He  declares  that  election  is  a  true  doctrine, 
and  would  have  it  retained  in  the  Presbyterian  creed  ;  but 
that  reprobation  is  a  "  horrible"  doctrine,  and  would  have 
it  stricken  out.  When  the  Confession  (iii.  3)  asserts  that 
"  by  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto  everlasting- 
life,"  he  says,  Amen.  But  when  it  also  asserts  that  "  by 
the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his  glory, 
some  men  and  angels  are  foreordained  to  everlasting 
death,"  he  rejects  the  statement  as  dishonoring  to  God. 
That  God  intends  from  all  eternity  to  display  his  mercy 
in  pardoning  a  sinner,  is  unobjectionable;  but  that  he 
also  intends  from  all  eternity  to  display  his  justice  in 
punishing  a  sinner,  is  vehemently  opposed.  The  Divine 
love  for  the  soul  of  man  he  thinks  is  worthy  of  God  ;  but 
not  the  Divine  wrath  against  the  sin  of  man.  The  revis- 
er of  this  class  makes  a  selection  among  the  Divine  attri- 
butes, and  confines  the  exhibition  of  the  Divine  glory  in 
the  Divine  decree  to  them. 

Now  this  one-sided  and  lopsided  view  of  the  Divine  de- 
cree, is  founded  upon  an  erroneous  view  of  the  nature  of 
retributive  justice.  It  virtually  implies  that  retributive 
justice  does  not  belong  to  the  congeries  of  attributes  which 
constitutes  the  total  glory  of  God ;  and  that  to  manifest 
it  by  leaving  some  sinners  to  their  own  free  will  in  sin- 
ning, and  then  punishing  them  according  to  the  just  de- 
sert of  their  sin,  is  not  a  manifestation  of  glory  but  a  dis- 
grace. But  the  manifestation  of  justice  is  as  truly  a 
manifestation  of  the  glory  of  God  as  the  manifestation  of 
6 


82  CALVINISM  : 

mercy,  provided  both  attributes  belong  to  the  Divine 
nature,  and  that  both  are  infinitely  excellent.  The  decree 
to  manifest  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  nature  of  the  at- 
tribute in  either  instance.  If  it  is  proper  for  God  to  in- 
flict retribution  at  all,  it  is  proper  for  him  to  intend  to  do 
so  from  all  eternity.  And  if  it  is  proper  for  God  to  show 
mercy  at  all,  it  is  proper  for  him  to  intend  to  do  so  from 
all  eternity.  Justice  is  as  morally  excellent  as  mercy  ; 
and  holiness  as  benevolence.  All  of  the  divine  attributes 
are  perfect.  No  one  is  inferior  to  the  others  in  this  re- 
spect, because  infinity  characterizes  them  all.  When  God 
punishes  impenitent  and  hardened  Satan,  and  all  beings 
who  have  his  impenitent  and  hardened  spirit,  his  act  is  as 
worthy  of  praise  and  adoration  as  when  he  pardons  peni- 
tent sinners  through  Jesus  Christ.  "  I  heard  a  great  voice 
of  much  people  in  heaven,  saying,  Alleluia  ;  Salvation,  and 
glory,  and  honor,  and  power,  unto  the  Lord  our  God  ; 
for  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments"  (Rev.  19: 
1,2). 

The  view  of  retributive  justice  which  we  are  criticising 
has  no  support  either  in  Scripture  or  in  reason.  St.  Paul 
asserts  that  "the  ministration  of  death  written  and  en- 
graven in  stones  was  glorious  ;  "  and  that  "  the  ministra- 
tion of  con deni nation  is  glory"  (2  Cor.  3:7,  9).  The 
ministration  of  death  is  the  ministration  of  justice;  the 
infliction  of  the  righteous  penalty,  "The  soul  that  sin- 
neth  it  shall  die."  And  the  inspired  apostle  affirms  that 
it  is  intrinsically  glorious  and  exhibits  the  glory  of  God. 
It  is  true  that  he  adds  that  "  the  ministration  of  the 
Spirit"  and  "the  ministration  of  [imputed]  righteous- 
ness" "exceed  in  glory"  the  ministration  of  condem- 
nation ;  that  is,  that  the  gospel  shows  more  of  the  Di- 
vine attributes,  and  so  is  a  fuller  manifestation  of  the 
Divine  plenitude  of  perfection  than  the  legal  and  puni- 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  83 

tive  dispensation  is.  But  in  so  saying,  lie  does  not  retract 
his  proposition,  that  "  the  ministration  of  condemnation  is 
glory."  There  is  no  need  of  quoting  the  multitude  of 
texts  that  teach  that  holiness  and  justice  are  as  grand  and 
venerable  attributes  in  the  Divine  nature,  as  benevolence 
and  mercy.  They  excite  the  emotions  of  praise  and 
adoration  in  the  highest  heavens.  The  wing-veiled  sera- 
phiin  emphasize  these  attributes  in  particular  when  they 
worship  God  in  their  trisagion,  "Holy,  holy,  holy  is  the 
Lord  of  Hosts."  The  redeemed  "  sing  the  song  of  Moses 
and  the  Lamb,  saying,  Great  and  marvellous  are  thy 
works,  Lord  God  Almighty  ;  just  and  true  are  thy  ways, 
thou  King  of  saints.  Who  shall  not  fear  thee,  O  Lord, 
and  glorify  thy  name  ?  for  thou  only  art  holy  "  (Rev. 
15:  3,  4). 

The  argument  from  reason  is  equally  conclusive  that 
holiness  and  justice  constitute  an  essential  part  of  the  Di- 
vine character,  and  are  august  attributes  that  contribute 
to  the  Divine  honor  and  glory,  and  therefore  ought  to 
be  manifested.  They  are  the  attributes  that  underlie 
all  government  and  legislation,  human  and  divine.  The 
science  of  law,  which  is  next  in  dignity  to  that  of  theol- 
ogy, and  in  some  respects  is  as  abstruse  and  logical,  and 
should  therefore  share  in  the  abuse  so  frequently  showered 
upon  systematic  theology,  is  built  out  of  this  quarry  ;  and 
in  the  familiar  but  ever  lofty  and  noble  phrase  of  Hooker, 
the  seat  of  law  is  the  bosom  of  God,  and  the  voice  of  law 
is  the  harmony  of  the  world. 

It  is  therefore  both  unscriptural  and  irrational  to  con- 
fine the  manifestation  of  God's  glory  to  one  side  of  God's 
decree,  and  to  some  selected  and  favorite  attributes. 
Within  the  three  provinces  of  creation,  providence,  and 
redemption  all  of  the  attributes  are  manifested  ;  and  more 
of  them  are  manifested  in  redemption  than  in  creation  and 


84  CALVINISM  : 

providence.  And  this  is  the  best  reason  that  can  be  sug- 
gested for  the  permission  of  sin.  Without  sin  there  could 
be  no  redemption  from  sin,  and  if  there  had  been  no  re- 
demption from  sin  that  marvellous  union  and  combina- 
tion and  harmonizing  of  mercy  with  justice  in  the  vicari- 
ous sacrifice  of  God  incarnate  and  crucified,  could  have 
had  no  manifestation  whatever.  All  this  side  of  the 
glory  of  God  would  have  been  kept  secret  and  hidden  in 
the  depths  of  the  Godhead,  and  been  utterly  unknown  to 
angels  and  men. 

And  here  let  it  be  noticed  that  the  question,  how  many 
are  elected  and  how  many  are  reprobate,  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  question  whether  God  may  either  elect  or 
reprobate  sinners.  If  it  is  intrinsically  right  for  him 
either  to  elect  or  not  to  elect,  either  to  save  or  not  to  save 
free  moral  agents  who  by  their  own  fault  have  plunged 
themselves  into  sin  and  ruin,  numbers  are  of  no  account 
in  establishing  the  rightness.  And  if  it  is  intrinsically 
wrong,  numbers  are  of  no  account  in  establishing  the 
wrongness.  Neither  is  there  any  necessity  that  the  num- 
ber of  the  elect  should  be  small,  and  that  of  the  non-elect 
great ;  or  the  converse.  The  election  and  the  non-election, 
and  also  the  numbers  of  the  elect  and  the  non-elect,  are 
all  alike  a  matter  of  sovereignty  and  optional  decision. 
At  the  same  time  it  relieves  the  solemnity  and  awfulness 
which  overhang  the  decree  of  reprobation,  to  remember 
that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  number  of  the  elect  is 
much  greater  than  that  of  the  non-elect.  The  kingdom 
of  the  Redeemer  in  this  fallen  world  is  always  described 
as  far  greater  and  grander  than  that  of  Satan.  The 
operation  of  grace  on  earth  is  uniformly  represented  as 
mightier  than  that  of  sin.  "Where  sin  abounded,  grace 
did  much  more  abound.1'  And  the  final  number  of  the 
redeemed  is  said  to  be  "a  multitude  which  no  man  can 


PURE    AND   MIXED  85 

number,"  but  that  of  the  lost  is  not  so  magnified  and  em- 
phasized. 

4.  Fourthly,  the  reason  wli}'  God  should  do  everything 
for  his  own  glory  in  the  manifestation  of  all  of  his  attri- 
butes, and  why  all  of  his  rational  creatures  should  do 
everything  for  the  same  purpose,  so  far  as  is  possible  to 
them,  is  because  he  is  the  first  cause  and  the  last  end  of 
all  things.  "  Of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to  him,  are 
all  things,"  says  St.  Paul.  Every  created  being  and  thing 
must  have  a  final  end  ;  a  terminus.  The  mineral  king- 
dom is  made  for  the  vegetable  kingdom  ;  the  vegetable 
kingdom  is  made  for  the  animal  kingdom  ;  the  animal 
kingdom  is  made  for  man  ;  and  all  of  them  together  are 
made  for  God.  Go  through  all  the  ranges  of  creation, 
from  the  molecule  of  matter  to  the  seraphim,  and  if  you 
ask  for  the  final  purpose  of  its  creation,  the  reply  is  the 
glory  of  the  Maker.  And  this  is  reasonable.  For  God  is 
the  greatest  and  most  important,  if  we  may  use  the  word 
in  such  a  connection,  of  all  beings.  That  which  justifies 
man  in  putting  the  dumb  animals  to  his  own  uses,  is  the 
fact  that  he  is  a  grander  creature  than  they  are.  That 
which  makes  the  inanimate  world  subservient  to  the  ani- 
mate; that  winch  subsidizes  the  elements  of  earth,  air, 
and  water,  and  makes  them  tributary  to  the  nourishment 
and  growth  of  the  beast  and  the  bird,  is  the  fact  that  the 
beast  and  the  bird  are  of  a  higher  order  of  existence  than 
earth,  air,  and  water.  It  was  because  man  was  the 
noblest,  the  most  important,  of  all  the  creatures  that  God 
placed  upon  this  planet,  that  he  subordinated  them  all  to 
him,  and  said  to  him  in  the  original  patent  by  which  he 
deeded  the  globe  to  him:  "Behold,  I  have  given  you 
every  herb  bearing  seed  ;  have  dominion  over  the  fish  of 
the  sea,  and  over  the  fowl  of  the  air,  and  over  every  liv- 
ing thing  that  moveth  upon  the  earth." 


86  CALVINISM  : 

Now  this  principle  holds  good  of  the  relation  between 
the  whole  creation  and  its  Creator.  He  is  a  higher  and 
greater  being  than  the  whole  created  universe.  The  mass 
of  his  being,  so  to  speak,  outweighs  all  other  masses.  lie 
never  has  created,  he  never  can  create,  anything  equal  to 
himself  in  infinity  and  glory,  And  therefore  it  is  that  he 
is  the  final  end,  the  cause  of  causes,  the  absolute  ter- 
minus where  all  the  sweep  and  movement  of  creation 
must  come  to  a  rest.  It  is  an  objection  of  the  sceptic, 
and  sometimes  of  those  who  are  not  sceptics,  that  this 
perpetual  assertion  in  the  Scriptures  that  God  is  the  chief 
end  of  creation,  and  this  perpetual  demand  that  the  creat- 
ure glorify  him,  is  only  a  species  of  infinite  egotism  ;  that 
in  making  the  whole  unlimited  universe  subservient  to 
him  and  his  purposes,  the  Deity  is  only  exhibiting  selfish- 
ness upon  an  immense  scale.  But  this  objection  overlooks 
the  fact  that  God  is  an  infinitely  greater  and  higher  being 
than  any  or  all  of  his  creatures  ;  and  that  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case  the  less  must  be  subordinated  to  the 
greater.  Is  it  egotism,  when  man  employs  in  his  service 
his  ox  or  his  ass  ?  Is  it  selfishness,  when  the  rose  or  the 
lily  takes  up  into  its  own  fabric  and  tissue  the  inanimate 
qualities  of  matter,  and  converts  the  dull  and  colorless 
elements  of  the  clod  into  hues  and  odors,  into  beauty  and 
bloom?  There  would  be  egotism  in  the  procedure,  if  man 
were  of  no  higher  grade  of  existence  than  the  ox  or  the 
ass.  There  would  be  selfishness,  if  the  rose  and  the  lily 
were  upon  the  same  level  with  the  inanimate  elements  of 
matter.  But  the  greater  dignity  in  each  instance  justifies 
tiie  use  and  the  subordination.  And  so  it  is,  o\\]y  in  an 
infinitely  greater  degree,  in  the  case  when  the  whole  crea- 
tion is  subordinated  and  made  to  serve  and  glorify  the 
Creator.  The  distance  between  man  and  his  ox,  between 
the  lily  and  the  particle  of  moisture  which  it  imbibes,  is 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  87 

measurable.  It  is  not  infinite.  But  the  distance  between 
God  and  the  highest  of  his  archangels  is  beyond  computa- 
tion. He  chargeth  his  angels  with  folly.  And  therefore 
upon  the  principle  that  the  less  must  serve  the  greater, 
the  lower  must  be  subordinate  to  the  higher,  it  is  right 
and  rational  that  "every  creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and 
on  the  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the 
sea,  and  all  that  are  in  them,  should  say  :  '  Blessing  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth 
upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  forever  and  ever.' " 


88  CALVINISM  : 


VIII. 

THE  DOUBLE  PREDESTINATION  TO  HOLINESS  AND  SIN 

The  question  whether  there  is  a  double  predestination 
to  both  holiness  and  life  and  sin  and  death,  or  only  a  sin- 
gle predestination  to  holiness  and  life,  was  raised  in  the 
fifth  and  sixth  centuries,  during  the  Semi-Pelagian  con- 
troversy, and  afterward  in  the  ninth  century,  in  the  con- 
troversy between  Gottschalk  and  Ratramnus  on  the  one 
side,  and  Rabanns  Maurus  and  Hinciiiar  on  the  other. 
The  stricter  Augustinians  affirmed  the  predestinatio  du- 
plex to  both  holiness  and  sin  ;  the  milder  affirmed  only 
the  single  predestination  to  holiness.  Both  alike,  how- 
ever, opposed  the  synergistic  Semi-Pelagianism.  The 
Calvinistic  reformers  and  the  Calvinistic  creeds  asserted 
the  twofold  predestination.  The  Westminster  Confession 
declares  it  plainly.  It  is  explicitly  taught  in  Scripture. 
In  Rom.  8  :  29,  it  is  said  that  "  whom  God  did  fore- 
know, he  also  did  predestinate  (irpowpiae)  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son."  This  is  predestination  to  holi- 
ness. In  Acts  4:  27,  28,  it  is  said  that  "against  thy  holy 
child  Jesus,  Herod,  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles 
and  all  the  people  of  Israel  were  gathered,  for  to  do  what- 
soever thy  hand  and  thy  counsel  determined  before 
(irpowpure)  to  be  done."  This  is  predestination  to  sin. 
Compare  also  Acts  2 :  23  ;  Luke  22:  22;  Jude  4.  Pre- 
cisely the  same  Greek  word  is  employed  in  both  texts,  and 
should  therefore  be  translated  by  precisely  the  same  Eng- 
lish word  in  both.     James's  translators  render  it  by  "  pre- 


PURE   AND   MIXED  89 

destinate  "  in  Rom.  8  :  29,  and  by  "determined  before" 
(predetermined)  in  Acts  4 :  28.  There  is  no  material  dif- 
ference between  "  predestinate  "  and  "  predetermine,"  but 
it  would  have  been  better  to  have  employed  either  one 
word  or  the  other  in  both  instances,  because  a  merely 
English  reader  might  be  led  to  suppose  that  two  different 
Greek  words  are  employed  in  the  original.  The  Revisers 
consistently  render  irpowptae  in  both  texts  by  the  synony- 
mous term  "  foreordain."  Hetherington  (Westminster 
Assembly,  Chap,  x.)  contends  that  "  predestinate "  and 
"foreordain"  are  not  synonymous  and  interchangeable, 
because  in  Con.  iii.  3,  the  first  is  used  with  everlasting 
life,  and  the  last  with  everlasting  death.  His  statement 
is  as  follows :  "  By  predestination,  the  Westminster  di- 
vines meant  a  particular  decree  determining  to  confer  ever- 
lasting life.  By  foreordination,  they  meant  a  decree  of 
order  or  arrangement  determining  that  the  guilty  should 
be  condemned  to  everlasting  death  ;  and  this  they  regard- 
ed as  the  basis  of  judicial  procedure  according  to  which 
'  God  ordains  men  to  dishonor  and  wrath  for  their  sin.' 
Let  it  furthermore  be  remarked  that  while  according  to 
this  view  the  term  predestination  could  never  be  applied 
to  the  lost,  the  term  foreordination  might  be  applied  to 
the  saved,  since  they  also  are  subjects  in  one  sense  of  ju- 
dicial procedure."  There  are  the  following  objections  to 
this  denial  that  predestination  and  foreordination  are 
equivalent  terms,  and  to  this  definition  of  foreordination  : 
1.  One  and  the  same  word,  irpodpiae,  is  employed  in 
Scripture  to  denote  the  divine  action  in  reference  to  both 
holiness  and  sin,  life  and  death,  and  therefore  if  two  dif- 
ferent words  are  employed  to  translate  it,  they  ought  to  be 
synonymous  and  applicable  to  both  cases  alike.  2.  Lexi- 
cographers regard  them  as  synonymous.  Stormonth,  e.g., 
defines  "foreordain"  by  "predestinate,"  and  "  predesti- 


90  CALVINISM  : 

nate  "  by  "foreordain."  3.  If  7rpooopia€,  in  the  instance 
of  sin  and  death,  means  only  a  judicial  decision  to  punish 
sin,  then,  in  the  instance  of  holiness  and  life,  it  would 
mean  only  a  judicial  decision  to  reward  holiness.  If  it  is 
predestination  to  penalty  in  one  case,  it  must  be  predesti- 
nation to  reward  in  the  other.  But  when  St.  Paul  declares 
that  "  whom  God  did  foreknow  he  did  predestinate  to  be 
conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,"  he  means  that  he  pre- 
destinated them  to  the  conformity  itself,  and  not  merely 
to  the  reward  of  it.  4.  To  say,  as  Iletherington  does,  that 
"  to  foreordain  some  men  to  everlasting  death  "  is  "  a  de- 
cree determining  that  the  guilty  shall  be  condemned  to 
everlasting  death  "  (i.e.,  to  the  penalty  of  sin),  is  to  mis- 
conceive the  nature  of  a  decree.  The  matter  of  a  decree 
is  always  optional.  It  supposes  the  possibility  of  the  con- 
trary. When  God  decrees  the  creation  of  the  world,  he 
is  at  liberty  not  to  decree  it  and  not  to  create  it.  But 
when  he  condemns  the  guilty  to  punishment,  this  is  not  an 
optional  matter,  but  follows  necessarily  from  the  nature  of 
the  divine  justice  and  the  threatening  of  the  divine  law. 
There  is,  therefore,  no  more  place  for  a  decree  "  to  con- 
demn the  guilty  to  everlasting  death  "  than  for  a  decree 
that  virtue  shall  be  rewardable,  or  that  two  and  two  shall 
make  four.  The  same  remark  applies  to  Iletherington's 
definition  of  "predestination"  as  "a  particular  decree  de- 
termining to  confer  everlasting  life."  Everlasting  life, 
strictly  speaking,  is  the  reward  of  obedience,  which  fol- 
lows necessarily  from  God's  promise,  "  This  do  and  thou 
shalt  live,"  and  from  the  nature  of  remunerative  justice. 
There  is  nothing  optional  in  it.  We  cannot  conceive  of 
God's  decreeing  not  to  reward  obedience,  and  still  less  to 
punish  it.  Unless,  therefore,  "  conferring  everlasting 
life"  includes  the  origination  in  the  elect  of  the  holiness 
which  is  rewardable  with  everlasting  life,  as  was  probably 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  91 

the  view  of  Hetherington,  it  is  not  the  predestination 
which  St.  Paul  describes  as  a  predestination  "  to  be  con- 
formed to  the  image  "  of  the  Son  of  God. 

In  the  Pauline  conception,  predestination,  or  foreordi- 
nation,  covers  and  includes  both  the  holiness  that  is  to  be 
rewarded  with  life,  and  the  sin  that  is  to  be  punished  with 
death.  The  holiness  of  the  elect  is  predestinated,  and  the 
sin  of  the  non-elect  likewise.  Both  alike  are  represented 
by  the  apostle  as  standing  in  a  certain  relation  to  the  divine 
purpose  and  the  divine  action,  and  this  purpose  and  action 
are  designated  by  the  one  word  irpocopicre.  To  omit  both 
the  holiness  and  the  sin  from  the  predestination,  and  re- 
tain only  the  recompense  of  each,  is  to  mutilate  the  Bibli- 
cal representation,  and  convert  the  divine  predestination 
of  Con.  iii.  3,  into  the  divine  adjudication  or  sentencing  of 
Con.  iii.  7.  And  to  omit  the  sin  but  retain  the  holiness, 
as  is  done  by  those  who  adopt  the  single  predestination 
and  reject  the  double,  though  much  less  defective,  is  yet 
defective  in  omitting  that  element  of  revealed  truth  con- 
tained in  texts  like  Acts  4  :  27,  28  ;  2  :  23  ;  Luke  22  :  22  ; 
Jude  4  ;  Rom.  9 :  21,  et  alia,  whereby  sin  as  well  as  holi- 
ness is  taken  out  of  the  sphere  of  chance  and  brought 
within  the  divine  plan. 

If,  then,  the  Holy  Spirit  inspired  St.  Paul  to  employ 
the  word  irpocopiae  to  denote  the  nature  of  God's  action 
both  when  he  predestinates  the  elect  to  holiness  and  the 
non-elect  to  a  sin  like  that  of  crucifying  the  Lord  of 
glory,  it  becomes  a  most  important  question  :  What  is  the 
nature  of  this  predestinating  action  of  God  ?  What  does 
it  include  and  what  does  it  exclude  ?  The  answer  is,  that 
God's  predestinating  in  election  and  pretention  is  his 
making  the  origin  of  holiness  in  an  elect  sinner,  and  the 
continuance  (not  origin)  of  sin  in  a  non-elect  sinner,  a 
c  rtainty  in  his  plan  of  the  universe,  in  distinction  from  a 


92  CALVINISM  : 

contingency  outside  of  that  plan  springing  from  chance  ; 
and  that  it  includes  certainty  only,  and  excludes  necessity 
and  compulsion.  Opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  decrees, 
from  the  beginning,  generally  assume  that  to  decree  holi- 
ness or  sin  is  to  necessitate  them.  The  defenders  of  the 
doctrine  uniformly  deny  this.  They  contend  that  when 
the  divine  decree  relates  to  the  action  of  the  human  will, 
be  it  holy  or  sinful  action,  there  is  certainty,  but  not  com- 
pulsion. The  Westminster  Confession,  iii.  1,  declares  that 
"  God  [fore]  ordains  whatsoever  comes  to  pass ;  yet  so  as 
thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  nor  is  violence 
offered  to  the  will  of  the  creature  ;  nor  is  the  liberty  of 
second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established." 

How  can  these  things  be  ?  How,  in  the  first  place, 
does  God  make  the  origin  and  everlasting  continuance  of 
holiness  in  an  elect  sinner  a  certainty  without  compelling 
and  necessitating  his  will  ?  By  the  regenerating  and 
sanctifying  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  by  "  working  in 
the  will,  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure/'  Phil.  2: 
13.  Scripture  teaches  that  this  operation  of  the  Spirit 
does  not  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  will.  "  If  the  Son 
shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  indeed."  John  8  : 
30.  And  the  report  of  consciousness  agrees  with  this  ; 
for  the  regenerate  man  has  no  sense  of  being  forced  and 
unwilling  in  any  of  his  experiences  and  exercises. 

How,  in  the  second  place,  does  God  make  the  everlast- 
ing continuance  of  sin  in  a  non-elect  sinner  a  certainty 
without  compelling  and  necessitating  his  will  ?  By  let- 
ting him  alone,  or,  in  the  Confessional  phrase,  by  ;<  pass- 
ing him  by,"  and  leaving  him  wholly  to  his  own  self-de- 
termination in  sin  ?  The  sublapsarian  pretention,  which 
is  that  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and  all  the  lie- 
formed  creeds,  supposes  the  fall  in  Adam  and  the  existence 
of  sin  to  be  prior,  in  the  order  of  nature,  to  both  election 


PUKE    AND   MIXED  93 

and  pretention.  Election  and  pretention,  consequently, 
have  reference  to  the  continuance  of  sin,  not  to  the  origin 
of  it.  All  men  fall  in  Adam,  without  exception  ;  so  that 
there  is  no  election  or  non-election  to  the  fall  itself,  but 
only  to  deliverance  from  it.  Both  election  and  pretention 
suppose  the  fall,  and  are  inexplicable  without  it  as  a  pre- 
supposition. Men  are  elected  from  out  of  a  state  of  sin  ; 
and  men  are  passed  by  and  left  in  a  state  of  sin.  "  They 
who  are  elected  [and  they  who  are  passed  by]  being  fallen 
in  Adam,"  etc.,  Con.  iii.  6.  Election  stops  the  continu- 
ance of  sin  ;  pretention  permits  the  continuance  of  it. 
The  non-elect  man,  then,  like  the  elect,  being  already  in 
the  state  of  sin  and  guilt  by  the  free  fall  in  Adam,  noth- 
ing is  requisite  in  order  to  make  it  certain  that  he  will 
forever  remain  in  this  state  but  the  purpose  of  God  not  to 
restrain  and  change  the  action  of  his  free  will  and  self- 
-  will  in  sin  by  regenerating  it.  To  denominate  such 
merely  permissive  action  as  this,  compulsion,  is  absurd. 
And  yet  this  permissive  action  of  God  secures  the  certainty 
of  everlasting  sin  and  death  in  the  case  of  the  non-elect, 
just  as  infallibly  as  the  efficient  action  of  God  secures  the 
certainty  of  everlasting  holiness  and  life  in  the  case  of  the 
elect.  But  in  the  former  instance  the  certainty  is  secured 
wholly  by  the  action  of  the  sinner  himself,  while  in  the 
latter  instance  it  is  secured  by  the  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
within  the  sinner.  This  leaving  of  the  sinful  will  to  its 
own  movement  makes  endless  sin  an  infallible  certainty. 
For  the  sinner  .himself  will  and  can  never  regenerate  him- 
self ;  and  if  God  has  in  his  sovereignty  decided  and  pur- 
posed not  to  regenerate  him,  his  willing  and  endless  contin- 
uance in  sin  and  death  is  certain.  Every  Christian  knows 
that  if,  in  his  unregeneracy,  he  had  been  left  wholly  to  his 
own  free  will,  without  any  restraint  from  God,  he  would 
infallibly  have  gone  from  bad  to  worse  forever  and  ever. 


94  CALVINISM  : 

In  these  two  ways  of  efficiency  and  permission,  God 
"  foreordains  "  and  makes  certain  two  things  that  unques- 
tionably "  come  to  pass,"  namely,  the  everlasting  holiness 
and  life  of  some  men,  and  the  everlasting  sin  and  death  of 
some  men ;  "  yet  so  as  thereby  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin  ; 
nor  is  violence  done  to  the  will  of  the  creature  ;  nor  is  the 
liberty  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  established." 
When  God  predetermined  from  eternity  not  to  restrain  and 
prevent  "Herod,  and  Pontius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles,  and 
all  the  people  of  Israel,"  from  crucifying  his  beloved  Son,  but 
to  leave  them  to  their  own  wicked  inclination  and  volun- 
tary action  in  the  case,  he  made  this  crucifixion  a  certainty, 
but  not  a  necessity,  as  is  evinced  by  the  "  woe  "  pronounced 
upon  them  by  the  Son  of  God.  Luke  22  :  22.  Men  with 
hearts  and  dispositions  full  of  hatred  toward  the  Saviour 
of  the  world,  if  left  to  themselves  are  infallibly  certain  to 
cry,  "Crucify  him;  crucify  him."     John  19:  12-15. 

The  Confession  (vi.  1  ;  L.  C.  19)  declares  that  God 
"permits"  sin,  but  that  it  is  not  a  "bare  permission." 
Con.  v.  4.  The  permission  that  is  adopted  by  the  As- 
sembly is  one  that  occurs  by  a  voluntary  decision  of  God 
which  he  need  not  have  made,  had  lie  so  pleased.  He 
might  have  decided  not  to  permit  sin  ;  in  which  case  it 
would  not  have  entered  his  universe.  The  "  bare  per- 
mission" which  is  rejected  by  the  Assembly  means  that 
God  makes  no  voluntary  decision  at  all  in  the  case  ;  that 
he  could  not  have  prevented  the  fall  of  angels  and  men, 
but  stands  "  like  an  idle  spectator,"  having  no  control  over 
the  event  which  he  witnesses.  Augustine  makes  the  fol- 
lowing statement  in  his  Enchiridion,  Ch.  100  ;  "In  a  way 
unspeakably  strange  and  wonderful,  even  what  is  done  in 
opposition  to  God's  will  [of  desire]  does  not  defeat  his 
will  [of  decree].  For  it  would  not  be  done  did  he  not 
permit  it,  and   of  course  his  permission  is  not  unwilling, 


PURE    AND    MIXED  95 

bnt  willing ;  nor  would  a  Good  Being  permit  evil  to  be 
done  except  that  in  his  omnipotence  he  can  turn  evil  into 
good."  Calvin,  adopting  Augustine's  phraseology,  con- 
cisely marks  the  difference  between  the  two  permissions 
in  the  remark,  that  "  God's  permission  of  sin  is  not  invol- 
untary, but  voluntary."  Inst.  I.  xviii.  3.  Both  Angus- 
tine  and  Calvin  had  particular  reference,  in  this  connec- 
tion, to  the  first  origin  of  sin  in  angels  and  men.1  But 
their  statement  holds  true  of  the  continuance  of  sin  in 
angels  and  men.  When  God  passes  by  all  the  fallen  and 
sinful  angels,  and  does  not  regenerate  and  save  any  of 
them,  it  is  by  a  positive  voluntary  decision  that  might 
have  been  different  had  he  so  pleased.  He  could  have 
saved  them.  And  when  God  passes  by  some  fallen  and 
sinful  men  and  does  not  regenerate  and  save  them,  this 
also  is  a  positive  voluntary  decision  that  might  have  been 
different  had  he  so  pleased.  He  could  have  saved  them. 
To  deny  this  option  of  God  in  either  instance  is  to  deny, 
1st,  the  divine  sovereignty  in  the  exercise  of  mercy;  and, 
2d,  the  divine  omnipotence  in  the  control  of  creatures. 

1  The  permissive  decree  as  related  to  the  origin  of  sin  presents  a  dif- 
ficulty that  does  not  exist  in  reference  to  the  continuance  of  sin.  The 
certainty  of  the  continuance  of  sin  in  fallen  man  is  easily  explained,  by 
merely  leaving  the  fallen  will  to  its  self-determination.  But  merely 
leaving  the  unfallen  will  to  its  self-determination  would  not  make  its 
apostasy  certain  ;  because  it  was  endowed  by  creation  with  a  power  to 
remain  holy  as  created,  and  there  was  no  punitive  withdrawal  of  any 
grace  given  in  creation  until  after  apostasy.  How,  under  these  circum- 
stances, a  permissive  decree  which  does  not  operate  by  direct  efficiency 
can  make  the  fall  of  a  holy  being  certain,  is  an  inscrutable  mystery. 
Respecting  it,  Turretin  (VI.  vii.  1)  makes  the  following  remark:  "Two 
extremes  are  to  be  avoided.  First,  that  of  defect,  when  an  otiose  per- 
mission of  sin  is  ascribed  to  God.  Second,  that  of  excess,  when  the 
causality  of  sin  is  ascribed  to  him.  Between  these  extremes,  the  or- 
thodox hold  the  mean,  who  contend  that  the  providence  of  God  extends 
to  sin  in  such  way  that  he  does  not  involuntarily  permit  it,  as  the  Pela- 
gians say,  nor  actively  cause  it,  as  the  Libertines  assert,  but  voluntarily 
ordains  and  controls  it." 


CALVINISM  : 


IX. 

COMMON  AND  SPECIAL  GRACE 

The  distinction  between  common  and  special  grace  is 
closely  connected  with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election 
and  pretention.  If  it  is  denied  or  explained  away,  it  is 
impossible  to  hold  the  Calvinistic  view  on  these  latter 
points.  This  will  appear  by  considering  the  distinction  as 
taught  in  Scripture,  and  formulated  in  the  Westminster 
Standards. 

Common  grace  is  a  lower  degree  of  grace  than  special. 
The  latter  succeeds  in  overcoming  the  enmity  of  the  car- 
nal mind  and  the  opposition  of  the  sinful  will ;  the  former 
does  not  succeed.  Says  John  Howe,  "  When  divine  grace 
is  working  but  at  the  common  rate  ;  then  it  suffers  itself 
oftentimes  to  be  overcome,  and  yields  the  victory  to  the 
contending  sinner."  This  was  the  case  with  the  people  of 
Israel  as  described  by  Stephen,  "  Ye  stiff-necked  and  un- 
circumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the 
Holy  Ghost,  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye."  Acts  7  :  51, 
The  same  complaint  was  made  against  resisting  Israel  by 
Isaiah,  "  They  rebelled  and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit ;  there- 
fore he  was  turned  to  be  their  enemy."  Isa.  63 :  10.  The 
same  failure  of  common  grace  to  subdue  the  sinner  is 
noted  in  Gen.  6:  10,  "My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive 
with  man."  Whenever  man  quenches  conviction  of  sin 
and  plunges  into  temptation  in  order  to  get  rid  of  serious 
and  anxious  thoughts,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  leaves  him  to 
his  own  self-will,  this  is  common  grace.     The  process  is 


PURE   AND    MIXED  97 

described  in  the  solemn  words  of  God  himself,  "  Because 
I  have  called  and  ye  have  refused  ;  I  have  stretched  out 
my  hand  and  no  man  regarded,  but  ye  have  set  at  nought 
all  my  counsel  and  would  none  of  my  reproof,  I  also  will 
laugh  at  your  calamity,  I  will  mock  when  your  fear  com- 
eth."  Prov.  1  :  24-26.  In  common  grace,  the  sinner  is  too 
obstinate  and  self-determined  in  sin  for  it  to  succeed. 

In  special  grace,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Holy  Spirit  does 
not  leave  the  sinner  to  his  own  self-determination,  but 
continues  to  operate  upon  his  resisting  will  until  he  sub- 
dues it.  He  "  makes  him  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power." 
Ps.  110  :  3.  He  "  works  in  him  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  pleasure."  Phil.  2  :  13.  He  "  makes  him  perfect  in 
every  good  work  to  do  his  will,  working  in  him  that  which 
is  well  pleasing  in  his  sight."  Ileb.  13  :  21.  This  grade 
of  divine  grace  is  higher  than  common  grace.  It  is  de- 
nominated "  irresistible,"  not  in  the  sense  that  no  resist- 
ance is  made  by  the  sinner,  but  in  the  sense  that  it  con- 
quers all  his  resistance.  It  is  also  denominated  "  effectual," 
because  it  secures  salvation.  It  is  also  called  "  regenerat- 
ing," because  it  changes  the  disposition  of  the  sinful  heart 
and  will  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."     Tit.  3  :  5. 

These  two  forms  and  grades  of  grace,  so  plainly  de- 
scribed in  the  Scripture  texts  above  cited,  are  mentioned 
in  the  Westminister  Confession,  vii.  3,  "  Man  by  his  fall, 
having  made  himself  incapable  of  life  by  that  [legal] 
covenant,  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  make  a  second,  com- 
monly called  the  covenant  of  grace,  wherein  he  freely 
offered  unto  sinners  life  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ, 
requiring  of  them  faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved, 
and  promising  to  give  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  to 
life  his  Holy  Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  be- 
lieve." According  to  this  statement  there  are  two  things 
7 


98  CALVINISM  : 

contained  in  the  covenant  of  grace:  (a)  An  offer  to  sinners 
of  life  and  salvation  by  Jesns  Christ,  requiring  of  them 
faith  in  him,  that  they  may  be  saved  ;  and  (b)  ^promise 
to  irive  unto  all  those  that  are  ordained  to  life  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  make  them  willing  and  able  to  believe.  The 
"  offer  "  in  the  covenant  of  grace  is  made  to  all  sinners 
without  exception,  but  the  "promise"  in  the  covenant  is 
made  only  to  "those  that  are  ordained  to  life,"  or  the 
elect.  The  "  offer  "  is  common  grace  ;  the  "  promise  "  is 
special  grace.  The  "offer  "is  taught  in  such  Scriptures 
as,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
eveiy  creature.  lie  that  believeth  shall  be  saved."  Mark 
10  :  15.  "  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not 
perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  John  3:  16.  The 
"  promise  "  is  taught  in  such  Scriptures  as,  "  A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  1  put  within  you, 
and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and 
I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh."  Ezek.  36 :  26,  27. 
"  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to  me  ;  and 
him  that  cometh  to  me  [becanse  given  by  the  Father]  I 
will  in  no  wise  cast  out.  No  man  can  come  to  me,  except 
the  Father  which  hath  sent  me,  draw  him."  John  6  : 
37,  44. 

The  following  then,  are  some  of  the  marks  of  distinction 
between  common  and  special  grace  :  (d)  In  common  grace 
God  demands  faith  in  Christ,  but  does  not  give  it;  in 
special  grace  God  both  demands  and  gives  faith,  for  "  faith 
is  the  gift  of  God."  Eph.  2  :  8.  When  God  says  to  a  sin- 
ner :  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved,"  he  makes  no  promise  or  pledge  to  originate 
faith  in  him.  The  sinner,  in  this  case,  must  originate  his 
own  faith,  and  any  sinner  that  originates  it  will  find  that 
God  will  be  true  to  his  word,     (b)  In  common  grace  man 


PURE   AND   MIXED  99 

must  of  himself  fulfil  the  condition  of  salvation,  namely, 
believe  and  repent ;  in  special  grace  God  persuades  and 
enables  him  to  fulfil  it.  (c)  In  common  grace  the  call  to 
believe  and  repent  is  invariably  ineffectual,  because  man  is 
averse  to  faith  and  repentance  and  in  bondage  to  sin ;  in 
special  grace  the  call  is  invariably  effectual,  because  his 
aversion  and  bondage  are  changed  into  willingness  and 
true  freedom  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  (d) 
Common  grace  is  universal  and  indiscriminate,  having  no 
relation  to  election  and  pretention.  JSro  man  is  elected  to 
it,  and  no  man  is  "  passed  by"  in  its  bestowment.  All 
men  who  come  to  years  of  self-consciousness  are  more  or 
less  convicted  of  sin  (Rom.  1  :  32  ;  2  :  14,  15),  are  more  or 
less  commanded  to  repent  (Acts  17:  30),  are  more  or  less 
urged  to  repentance  (Rom.  2  :  4),  and  are  more  or  less 
striven  with  by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Gen.  6:10;  Acts  IT  :  2G, 
27) — all  of  which  belong  to  the  common  operations  of 
divine  grace.  Special  grace,  on  the  contrary,  is  particular 
and  discriminating,  and  is  connected  with  election  and  pre- 
tention. God  does  not  originate  faith  and  repentance  in 
all  men,  nor  does  he  promise  to  do  so.  He  does  not  per- 
suade and  enable  every  man  without  exception  to  believe 
and  repent.  Only  those  whom  he  chooses  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  are  the  subjects  of  that  higher 
degree  of  the  energy  of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  which  these 
wonderful  effects  are  wrought  in  the  sinner.  Respecting 
special  grace,  God  "  saith  to  Moses,  I  will  have  mercy  on 
whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  compassion  on 
whom  I  will  have  compassion."  And  St.  Paul  from  this 
draws  the  inference,  "  Therefore  he  hath  mercy  on  whom 
he  will  have  mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth  " 
[leaves  in  sin].  Rom.  9  :  15,  18.  In  accordance  with 
these  and  similar  Scriptures,  the  Confession  (vii.  3)  declares 
that  it  is  only  to  "  those  that  are  ordained  to  life  "  that 


100  CALVINISM  : 

God  "promises  to  give  his  Holy  Spirit  to  make  them 
willing  and  able  to  believe." 

What  now  is  the  difference  between  the  Calvinistic  and 
the  Arminian  view  of  common  grace  ?  This  is  a  question 
of  great  importance  just  now,  because  the  Northern  Pres- 
byterian Church  has  decided  by  a  large  majority  that  it 
will  make  no  alteration  of  its  Standards  that  will  impair 
their  Calvinism.  Calvinism  asserts  that  common  grace 
cannot  be  made  successful  by  the  co-operation  of  the  un- 
regenerate  sinner  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  thereby  be 
converted  into  special  or  saving  grace :  Arminianism  as- 
serts that  it  can  be.  The  Arminian  contends  that  the  or- 
dinary operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit  which  are  experi- 
enced by  all  men  indiscriminately  will  succeed,  if  the  un- 
renewed man  will  cease  to  resist  them  and  will  yield  to 
them.  Ceasing  to  resist  and  yielding,  lie  contends,  is  an 
agency  which  the  natural  man  can  and  must  exert  of  him- 
self, and  this  agency  co-working  with  that  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  secures  the  result — -namely,  faith  and  repentance. 
Faith  and  repentance  are  thus  the  product  of  a  joint 
agency  :  that  of  God  and  that  of  the  unreg-enerate  sin- 
ner.  Neither  party  originates  faith  and  repentance  alone. 
Neither  party  is  independent  of  the  other  in  this  transac- 
tion. If  the  sinner  does  not  cease  resisting  and  submit, 
God  will  fail,  and  if  God  does  not  assist  him  by  common 
grace,  the  sinner  will  fail.  Each  conditions  the  other; 
and  consequently  the  Arminian,  from  his  point  of  view,  is 
consistent  in  asserting  that  the  Divine  election  to  faith 
and  repentance  is  not  sovereign  and  independent  of  the 
sinner's  action  but  is  conditioned  by  it. 

The  Calvinist,  on  the  contrary,  holds  that  the  unregen- 
erate  man  never  ceases  to  resist  and  never  yields  to  God 
oP  his  own  motion,  but  only  as  he  is  acted  upon  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  is  thereby  "  persuaded  and  enabled  "  to 


PURE    AND    MIXED  101 

cease  resisting  and  to  yield  obedience.  Ceasing  to  resist 
God,  he  contends,  is  holy  action,  and  so  is  yielding  or  sub- 
mitting to  God.  To  refer  this  kind  of  action  to  the  sin- 
ful and  unregenerate  will  as  its  author,  the  Calvinist  as- 
serts is  contrary  to  the  Scripture  declaration,  that  "  the 
carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God,  and  is  not  subject  to 
the  law  of  God,  neither  indeed  can  be."  Rom.  8:7.  A 
will  at  enmity  with  God  never  of  itself  ceases  resisting 
him,  and  never  of  itself  j7ields  to  him.  It  must  be  changed 
from  enmity  into  love  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  in  order  to  sweet  and 
gentle  submission.  The  sinner,  as  such,  cannot,  therefore, 
assist  and  co-operate  with  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  work  of 
originating  faith  and  repentance,  but  the  whole  of  it  must 
be  done  by  that  Almighty  Agent  who  can  turn  the  human 
heart  as  the  rivers  of  water.  Christ,  through  the  Spirit, 
is  the  sole  "  author  of  faith"  (Ileb.  12:  2).  When  the 
Holy  Spirit  puts  forth  a  higher  degree  of  his  energy  than 
he  exerts  in  his  ordinary  operation,  he  overcomes  and 
stops  the  sinner's  resistance  instead  of  the  sinner's  over- 
coming and  stopping  it  of  himself,  and  inclines  the  sinner 
to  yield  to  the  Divine  monitions  and  impulse  instead  of 
the  sinner's  yielding  of  his  own  accord.  ]f  the  sinner's 
resistance  is  "  overcome,"  it  is  overcome  by  God's  action  ; 
but  if  it  "ceases,"  it  ceases  by  the  sinner's  action.  To  say 
that  common  grace  would  succeed  if  it  were  not  resisted 
by  man,  is  not  the  same  as  saying  that  common  grace 
would  succeed  if  it  were  yielded  to  by  the  man.  JNon-re- 
sistance  is  different  from  ceasing  resistance.  In  the  former 
instance  there  is  no  opposition  by  the  man  ;  in  the  latter 
there  is  opposition,  which  is  put  a  stop  to  by  the  man. 

The  doctrine  of  a  co-operating  and  conditioning  action 
of  the  unrenewed  sinner,  by  which  common  grace  may  be- 
come special  or  saving  grace,  so  that  all  mankind  stand  in 


102  CALVINISM  : 

the  same  relation  to  election,  and  there  is  no  pretention 
by  God,  because  the  difference  between  the  elect  and  the 
non-elect  is  not  made  by  the  Divine  decree,  but  by  man's 
action  in  yielding  or  not  yielding  to  common  grace,  is 
clearly  expressed  in  the  following  extract  from  the 
Confession  of  the  Arminian  Remonstrants:  "Although 
there  is  the  greatest  diversity  in  the  degrees  in  which 
grace  is  bestowed  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  will,  yet 
the  Holy  Spirit  confers,  or  at  least  is  ready  to  confer, 
upon  all  and  each  to  whom  the  Word  is  ordinarily 
preached,  as  much  grace  as  is  sufficient  for  generating 
faith  and  carrying  forward  their  conversion  in  its  succes- 
sive stages.  This  sufficient  grace  for  faith  and  conversion 
is  allotted  not  only  to  those  who  actually  believe  and  are 
converted,  but  also  to  those  who  do  not  actually  believe, 
and  are  not  in  fact  converted.  So  that  there  is  no  decree 
of  absolute  reprobation "  (Confession,  ch.  xvii.).  This 
view  of  grace  is  synergistic.  Every  man  that  hears  the 
gospel  receives  a  degree  of  grace  that  is  sufficient  for 
generating  faith  and  repentance,  provided  he  yields  to  it. 
If,  therefore,  he  does  not  believe  and  repent,  it,  must  be 
because  of  the  absence  of  some  human  efficiency  to  co- 
operate with  the  Divine;  and  therefore  the  difference  be- 
tween the  saved  and  the  lost,  the  elect  and  the  non-elect, 
is  partly  referable  to  the  human  will,  and  not  wholly  to 
the  Divine  decree.  So  far  as  the  Divine  influence  is  con- 
cerned, the  saved  and  the  lost  stand  upon  the  same  com- 
mon position  and  receive  the  same  common  form  and  de- 
gree of  grace,  which  is  sufficient  to  save  provided  it  be 
rightly  used  and  assisted  by  the  sinner.  The  saved  man 
makes  the  common  grace  effectual  by  an  act  of  his  own 
will,  namely,  yielding  and  ceasing  resistance  ;  while  the 
lost  man  nullifies  it  by  an  act  of  his  own  will,  namely, 
persisting  in   enmity  and  opposition.     According  to  the 


PURE   AND   MIXED  103 

monergistic  or  Calvinistic  view  of  grace,  on  the  contrary, 
no  man  receives  a  grace  that  is  "  sufficient  for  generating 
faith  "  who  does  not  receive  such  a  measure  of  Divine 
influence  as  overcomes  his  hostile  will ;  so  that  he  does  not 
stop  his  own  resistance  but  is  stopped  by  the  mercy  and 
power  of  God ;  so  that  his  faith  and  repentance  are  not 
the  result  in  part  of  his  own  efficiency,  but  solely  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  irresistible  and  sovereign  energy  in  regen- 
eration. In  a  word,  the  dependence  upon  Divine  grace  in 
the  Calvinistic  system  is  total  ;  in  the  Arminian  is  partial. 
In  the  former,  common  grace  cannot  be  made  saving 
grace  by  the  sinner's  co-action  ;  in  the  latter  it  can  be. 

It  is  an  open  question  between  the  two  great  evangeli- 
cal divisions  of  the  Christian  Church  which  of  these  two 
views  of  grace  is  most  correct  and  most  conformed  to 
Scripture.  But  it  is  not  an  open  question  whether  one 
view  is  the  same  thing  as  the  other.  Yet  the  discussion 
respecting  the  revision  of  the  "Westminster  Standards 
shows  that  some  who  claim  to  be  Calvinists  adopt  the 
doctrine  of  co-operation,  and  make  election  and  salvation 
depend  partly  upon  human  action.  Consider  the  follow- 
ing statement  of  an  advocate  of  revision:  "There  is  a 
human  and  a  divine  side  to  regeneration.  God  determines 
how  many  and  who  will  be  saved,  and  every  man  de- 
termines for  himself  whether  he  will  be  among  that  num- 
ber." Here  are  two  "determiners"  who  co-operate  in 
regeneration,  God  and  the  sinner.  And  if  the  sinner 
"  determines  for  himself  whether  he  will  be  among  the 
number  of  the  saved,"  then  certainly  it  is  not  God  who 
"determines how  many  and  who  will  be  saved."  It  is  the 
sinner  who  determines  this.     This  is  not  Calvinism. 

Common  grace  is  connected  with  God's  legislative  will, 
or  will  of  desire;  special  grace  with  his  decretive  will,  or 
will  of  purpose.     (See  p.  52,  note.)     These  two  modes  of 


104  CALVINISM  : 

the  Divine  will  are  presented  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter 
in  two  passages  that  are  often  misapprehended.  The  texts, 
"  God  our  Saviour  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  "  (1  Tim.  2  :  3,  4),  and 
"  The  Lord  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward,  not  willing  that 
any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repent- 
ance" (2  Pet.  3  :  9),  are  often  quoted  as  if  they  were 
identical  in  their  teaching,  and  as  if  both  refer  to  com- 
mon grace.  An  examination  will  show  that  the  first  text 
is  universal  in  its  meaning,  and  refers  to  the  general 
offer  of  the  gospel  ;  but  the  last  is  particular,  and  re- 
lates to  the  effectual  call  and  actual  salvation  of  the  elect 
alone. 

In  1  Tim.  2  :  4,  the  Greek  is  09  iravras  dvSpcoTrovs 
QeXei  awSrjvai  (who  desires  all  men  to  be  saved).  In  2  Pet. 
3  :  9,  it  is  /J,rj  /3ou\6/xevo<i  rivas  aTroXeaSai,  aXka  Trdvras 
eh  fierdvoiav  ^(oprjaat  (not  purposing  that  some  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  go  on  to  [perfect]  repentance). 
The  employment  of  $e\&>  in  the  first  passage,  and  of 
/3ov\ofiai  in  the  second,  indicates  the  first  point  of  differ- 
ence. The  former  denotes  the  will  of  desire,  the  latter 
the  will  of  purpose.  An  examination  of  the  texts  in 
Bruder's  Concordance  will  plainly  show  that  in  the  New 
Testament  this  is  generally  the  use  of  these  two  words. 
The  Septuagint  use  is  not  so  strict  as  that  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  the  classical  is  still  more  loose.  The  dis- 
tinction generally  given  by  lexicographers  is,  that  /3ov- 
Xo/xai  involves  deliberation  and  intention  along  with  de- 
sire ("  deliberato  consilio  aliquid  volo,  cupio,  decerno"), 
while  $e\&>  denotes  simple  desire  only  ("  simpliciter 
volo").  In  1  Tim.  2  :  4,  St.  Paul  declares  that  God 
"  desires  all  men  to  be  saved,"  but  not  that  he  purposes 
that  they  all  shall  be.  In  2  Pet.  3  :  9,  St.  Peter  declares 
that   God  "  does  not  purpose  that   some   [of  us]   should 


PURE   AND   MIXED  105 

perish,  but  that  all  [of  us]  should  go  on  to  repentance  " 
(complete  sanctification). 

And  this  brings  us  to  the  second  point  of  difference. 
The  action  of  SiXei  in  1  Tim.  2  :  4  terminates  on  Trdvras 
av&pooTTovs  ;  that  of  (3ou\6^evo<;  in  2  Pet.  3  :  9  termi- 
nates on  nvm  (avSpooTrovs).  All  men  are  the  object  of  the 
Divine  desire  ;  some  are  the  object  of  the  Divine  decree. 
Who  these  latter  are  is  shown  by  the  immediately  pre- 
ceding context,  "  The  Lord  is  long-suffering  to  us-ward 
(els  f)fia<;),  not  purposing  that  an}7  [of  us  :  ?///.&n>]  should 
perish."  St.  Paul  is  writing  to  the  children  of  God,  and 
it  is  concerning  such  that  he  affirms  that  none  of  them 
shall  perish,  because  this  is  the  decretive  will  of  God. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  terms  desire  or  inclination, 
and  purpose,  intention,  or  decree,  have  not  been  more  care- 
fully employed  in  both  the  Authorized  and  Revised  ver- 
sions to  mark  the  difference  between  SeXrj/jLa  and  /3ov\r)/jLa. 
In  liom.  9  :  22,  the  meaning  of  St.  Paul  would  be  more 
clearly  expressed  if  the  translation  were,  "  What  if  God, 
[though]  inclined  (SeXaiv)  to  shew  his  wrath  and  make  his 
power  known,  [yet]  endured  with  much  long-suffering  the 
vessels  of  wrath  fitted  for  destruction."  The  apostle  asks 
the  objector  what  he  would  say  in  reply  if  the  fact  were 
(as  it  actually  is),  that  God  shows  infinite  patience  and 
forbearance  toward  the  obstinate  and  impenitent  sinner 
in  putting  a  restraint  upon  his  holy  displeasure  against 
sin,  which  inclines  him  to  the  immediate  punishment  of 
it.  In  Rom.  9:19,  the  meaning  would  be  free  from  all 
ambiguity  if  the  rendering  were,  "  Who  hath  resisted  his 
decree  (ftovXtjfiaTi)  %  "  Every  human  being  has  resisted 
God's  "  will "  in  the  sense  of  desire,  as  used  in  Matt.  5  : 
10,  "Thy  will  (Be\Vfxa)  be  done."  In  Ileb.  6:  17,  the 
writer's  thought  would  be  more  exactly  presented  if  the 
rendering  were,  "  Wherein  God,  intending  (fiovXofievos) 


106  CALVINISM  : 

more  abundantly  to  show  unto  the  heirs  of  promise  the 
immutability  of  his  counsel,"  etc.  The  rendering  in  the 
Authorized  version,  "  willing  to  show,"  might  mean  will- 
ing in  distinction  from  unwilling,  or  willing  in  the  sense 
of  desiring,  neither  of  which  expresses  the  definite  pur- 
pose of  God  in  the  case.  The  Revised  version  renders, 
''being  minded  to  show."  But  "minded  "  denotes  desire 
and  inclination  rather  than  purpose  or  intention  ;  as  in 
Rom.  8:6,"  To  be  carnally  minded  is  death,  but  to  be 
spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace."  In  Matt.  1  :  19, 
both  &e\co  and  (Bovkofiai  are  found,  and  would  be  pre- 
cisely translated  in  this  manner  :  "  Then  Joseph  her  hus- 
band being  a  just  [law-respecting]  man,  and  [yet]  not 
wishing  (SeXcov)  to  make  her  a  public  example,  intended 
(ifiovXrjSi])  to  put  her  away  privily." 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  107 


X. 

THE  TRUE  PROPORTION  IN  A  CREED  BETWEEN  THE  UNI- 
VERSAL AND  THE  SPECIAL  LOVE  OF  GOD 

It  is  objected  that  insufficient  emphasis  is  laid  in  the 
Westminster  Confession  upon  the  universal  offer  of  mercy, 
and  the  common  call  to  faith  and  repentance,  and  some 
even  contend  that  these  are  not  contained  in  it.  Advo- 
cates of  revision  demand  that  these  doctrines  shall  be 
more  particularly  enunciated  than  they  now  are,  and  com- 
plain that  more  is  said  concerning  the  electing  love  of 
God  in  the  effectual  call  than  upon  his  indiscriminate 
love  in  the  outward  call.  In  reply  to  this,  we  mention 
the  three  following  reasons  why  the  Westminster  Confes- 
sion, in  common  with  all  the  Reformed  creeds,  is  more 
full  and  emphatic  regarding  the  special  love  of  God 
toward  his  church  than  regarding  his  general  love  toward 
the  world. 

1.  The  Scriptures  themselves  are  more  full  and  em- 
phatic in  the  first  reference  than  in  the  last.  A  careful 
examination  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  will  show 
that  while  the  universal  compassion  of  God  toward  sinful 
men  is  plainly  and  frequently  taught,  yet  it  is  the  relation 
of  God  as  the  Saviour  of  his  people  that  constitutes  the 
larger  proportion  of  the  teachings  of  the  Prophets,  the 
Psalms,  the  Gospels,  and  the  Epistles.  These  parts  of 
Scripture  are  full  of  God's  dealings  with  his  covenant 
people,  instructing  them,  expostulating  with  them,  rebuk- 
ing them,  comforting  them,  helping  them — expressing  in 


108  CALVINISM : 

these  and  other  ways  his  special  love  and  affection  for 
them,  as  those  whom  he  has  chosen  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  Throughout  the  Bible  men  universally  are 
both  invited  and  commanded  to  believe  and  repent.  No 
one  disputes  this.  This  is  God's  universal  love.  But, 
whenever  the  love  of  God  is  particularly  enlarged  upon, 
carefully  delineated,  and  repeatedly  emphasized,  in  the 
great  majority  of  instances  it  is  his  electing  love.  The 
Saviour's  last  discourses  with  his  disciples,  and  his  last 
prayer,  have  for  their  principal  theme  the  "  love  of  his  own 
which  were  in  the  world,1'  whom  "he  loved  unto  the  end." 
For  these  he  specially  supplicates.  "I  pray  for  them: 
I  pray  not  [now]  for  the  world,  but  for  them  which  thou 
hast  given  me,  for  they  are  thine."  The  Epistles  of  Paul 
also  are  like  the  Redeemer's  discourses.  So  full  are  they 
of  expanded  and  glowing  descriptions  of  the  electing  love 
of  God  that  the  charge  of  a  narrow  Jewish  conception  of 
the  Divine  compassion  is  frequently  made  against  them. 
The  Confession  therefore  follows  the  Scriptures  in  regard 
to  the  proportion  of  doctrine,  when  it  puts  the  mercy  of 
God  toward  his  people  in  the  foreground.  And  to  object 
to  this  proportion  is  to  object  to  Divine  Revelation. 

2.  The  electing  love  of  God  and  his  special  grace  natu- 
rally has  the  foremost  place  in  the  Confession  as  in  Script- 
ure, because  it  is  the  only  love  and  grace  that  is  success- 
ful with  the  sinner.  The  universal  love  of  God  in  his 
outward  call  and  common  grace  is  a  failure,  because  it  is 
inadequate  to  overcome  the  enmity  and  resistance  with 
which  man  meets  it.  While  therefore  the  sacred  writers 
represent  the  common  call  as  prompted  by  the  compassion 
of  God  toward  the  sinner,  and  expressive  of  his  sincere 
desire  that  he  would  hear  it,  and  as  aggravating  his  per- 
sistence in  the  sin  of  which  a  free  pardon  is  offered,  yet 
inasmuch  as  it  yields  no  saving  and  blessed  results,  they 


PURE   AND   MIXED  109 

see  no  reason  for  making  it  the  principal  and  prominent 
part  of  the  Divine  oracles.  But  that  electing  love  in  the 
effectual  call  and  irresistible  grace,  which  overcomes  the 
aversion  of  the  sinner  and  powerfully  inclines  his  hostile 
will,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  principal  work  of  God  in  the 
human  heart,  becomes  the  principal  subject  of  discourse 
for  "  the  holy  men  of  God  who  spake  as  they  were"  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  They  dwell  rather  on  the  special 
grace  that  triumphs  over  human  depravity,  than  on  the 
common  grace  that  is  defeated  by  it. 

3.  The  universal  offer  of  mercy  is  not  emphasized  and 
enlarged  upon  in  the  Confession,  because  this  is  superflu- 
ous. That  the  offer  of  mercy  in  Christ  is  universal  goes 
without  saying,  because  if  offered  at  all  it  must  be  offered 
universally.  It  is  impossible  to  offer  the  atonement  of 
Christ  only  to  the  elect.  No  man  knows  who  are  the 
elect,  and  therefore  the  ambassador  of  Christ  must  offer 
salvation  to  everybody  or  else  to  nobody.  Any  offer  at 
all  must,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  unlimited.  Why, 
therefore,  waste  words  in  a  creed  to  declare  with  unneces- 
sary fulness  what  must  be  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  what 
is  clearly  and  sufficiently  announced  in  such  Scripture 
entreaties  as  "Turn  ye,  turn  ye,  for  why  will  ye  die,"  and 
such  Confessional  declarations  as  we  have  cited  on  pp.  24— 
29? 

If  it  be  objected  that  God  knows  who  are  the  elect,  and 
that  it  is  inconsistent  in  him  to  make  a  universal  offer  of 
mercy  through  an  ignorant  agent  like  a  Christian  minis- 
ter, when  he  does  not  purpose  to  regenerate  and  save 
every  individual  man,  this  is  a  difficulty  for  him,  not  for 
man.  It  is  certainly  consistent  for  man  to  offer  mercy  in- 
discriminately because  he  does  not  know  who  are  the  elect, 
even  if  it  is  not  for  God  because  he  does  know.  But  is 
it  inconsistent  for  God  ?     What  are  the  facts  in  relation 


110  CALVINISM  : 

to  God  ?  He  offers  mercy  to  a  man  in  the  outward  call, 
and  accompanies  this  call  with  that  degree  of  grace  de- 
nominated "  common."  The  man  despises  the  call  and 
frustrates  the  grace,  by  suppressing  conviction  of  sin  and 
persisting  in  the  worldly  life  which  he  loves.  Now  does 
the  fact  that  God  has  decided  not  to  do  anything  more 
than  this  toward  the  salvation  of  this  resisting  man  prove 
that  in  doing  this  he  has  acted  inconsistently  with  mercy  ? 
Is  not  God's  action  up  to  this  point  kind,  forbearing, 
patient,  and  merciful  ?  All  that  he  has  done  to  this  man 
in  the  outward  call  and  common  grace  has  had  no  ten- 
dency to  injure  him  by  confirming  him  in  sin,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  to  benefit  him  by  delivering  him  from  it.  There 
has  been  nothing  hard  or  unmerciful  in  this  form  and 
grade  of  divine  grace  toward  this  guilty  sinner  who  does 
not  deserve  the  least  degree  of  grace.  It  is  true  that  it  is 
not  the  highest  form  of  grace,  yet  it  is  real  grace,  and  far 
greater  than  any  sinner  merits.  Is  it  inconsistent  in  God 
to  do  any  kind  and  degree  of  good  to  a  sinner,  it  he  lias 
decided  not  to  do  the  highest  kind  and  degree  of  good  in 
his  power  ?  Shall  God  do  nothing  at  all  that  is  kind  and 
gracious  to  a  sinful  man,  unless  he  has  decided  to  over- 
come all  the  opposition  that  he  may  make  to  his  kindness 
and  grace?  Must  God  make  no  offer  of  mercy  to  a  sin- 
ner, unless  he  has  decided  to  make  him  accept  it  ?  Shall 
he  extend  the  common  call  only  in  the  case  in  which  he 
intends  to  follow  it  with  the  effectual  call  ? 

There  never  was  an  age  of  the  world  when  men  more 
needed  than  now  to  he  reminded  that  they  are  resisting 
the  common  grace  of  God,  and  rejecting  his  universal  offer 
of  mercy,  and  that  in  so  doing  they  run  the  great  hazard 
of  God's  pretention  /  of  being  passed  by  in  the  bestow- 
ment  of  regenerating  grace.  Men  need  to  fear,  lest,  by 
stifling  conviction  of  sin   and  turning;  a  deaf  ear  to  the 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  111 

common  call,  they  shall  never  be  the  subjects  of  the  effec- 
tual call  in  regeneration.  For,  says  the  Larger  Catechism, 
68,  "  others  [than  the  elect]  may  be,  and  often  are  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word,  and  have  tome 
common  operations  of  the  Spirit,  who,  for  their  wilful 
neglect  and  contempt  of  the  grace  offered  to  them,  being 
justly  left  in  their  unbelief,  do  never  truly  come  to  Jesus 
Christ."  And  this  agrees  with  the  solemn  declaration  of 
God  himself  :  "  Because  I  have  cnlled  and  ye  refused ;  I 
have  stretched  my  hand,  and  no  man  regarded  ;  I  also 
will  laugh  at  your  calamity  "  (Prov.  1  :  24-26). 


112  CALVINISM 


XL 
INFANT  SALVATION   AS  RELATED  TO  ORIGINAL  SIN 

In  order  to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  infants,  it  is  necessary  to  re- 
member the  two  theories  of  original  sin  which  began  in 
the  Angustinian  and  Semi-Pelagian  anthropologies,  and 
are  continued  in  the  Calvinistic  and  Arminian.  They  dif- 
fer essentially  from  each  other,  and  result  in  essentially 
different  views  of  infant  salvation. 

The  Angustinian  doctrine  is  that  original  sin  is  dam- 
ning, and  that  infants  deserve  eternal  death  on  account  of 
it.  Being  fallen  in  Adam,  they  have  a  corrupt  disposition 
or  inclination,  which  is  both  voluntary  and  responsible. 
It  is  the  self  in  its  central  and  inmost  self-determination. 
Though  the  infant  has  committed  no  acts  of  known  and 
wilful  transgression.,  yet  his  heart  is  estranged  from  God, 
and  his  will  is  at  enmity  with  the  holy  law  of  God.  When 
he  comes  to  years  of  consciousness  he  feels  guilty  for  this 
estrangement  and  this  enmity,  and  this  proves  that  it  is 
guilt.  An  infant,  therefore,  needs  salvation  because  he  is 
really  culpable  and  punishable.  He  requires  the  whole 
work  of  the  Redeemer,  both  as  expiating  guilt  and  cleans- 
ing from  pollution. 

The  Semi-Pelagian  doctrine  is,  that  original  sin  is  not 
damning;  that  neither  infants  nor  adults  deserve  eternal 
punishment  on  account  of  it.     Only  actual  transgression 

I  */  O 

merits  hell.     Upon  this  theory  original  sin  is  calamitous, 
not  culpable,  and    therefore  the  dying  infant  is  not  in  a 


PURE   AND   MIXED  113 

strictly  damnable  and  lost  condition.  He  has  a  disordered 
nature  which  tempts  and  prompts  to  sin,  but  is  not  sin  it- 
self. Consequently  when  he  is  said  to  be  "  saved,"  the 
term  does  not  mean,  as  it  does  on  the  other  theory,  that 
he  is  delivered  from  the  pains  of  hell  as  something  that 
might  justly  be  inflicted  upon  him. 

If  the  first  of  these  views  of  original  sin  is  adopted,  the 
salvation  of  dying  infants,  whether  of  some  or  of  all,  is 
an  act  of  unobliged  and  unmerited  grace.  It  is  salvation 
from  deserved  eternal  death.  By  reason  of  original  sin 
the  infant  is  truly  culpable  before  the  law  and  justice  of 
God.  He  might  be  punished  eternally  for  it,  and  no  in- 
justice would  be  done  to  him.  His  salvation,  therefore, 
is  as  unmerited  and  optional  as  that  of  an  adult.  God 
has  a  just  liberty  to  decide  whether  he  will  leave  all  in- 
fants in  sin  and  misery,  or  whether  he  will  regenerate  and 
save  all  of  them  or  a  part  of  them.  These  things  follow 
if  the  premise  that  original  sin  is  guilt  is  correct. 

If  the  second  of  these  views  of  original  sin  is  adopted, 
the  "  salvation  "  of  dying  infants  is  not  real  but  nominal 
and  putative,  because  it  is  not  grace  but  debt.  If  there 
be  no  culpability  in  original  sin,  there  is  none  resting  upon 
the  infant ;  for  this  is  all  the  sin  he  has.  If  he  does  not 
deserve  hell  punishment,  he  does  not  need  to  be  saved 
from  it,  and  is  not  saved  from  it.  His  moral  condition  is 
one  of  misfortune,  not  of  guilt.  His  so-called  "  salvation," 
therefore,  cannot  be  regulated  like  that  of  an  adult  by  the 
sovereign,  nnobliged,  and  optional  decision  of  God.  No 
infants  can  justly  be  sent  to  perdition  for  original  sin. 
All  must  be  "  saved "  from  its  consequences,  whatever 
these  may  be.  These  are  the  necessary  inferences  from 
this  view  of  original  sin,  and  they  are  embodied  in  the 
declaration  that  "  it  would  be  unjust  and  wrong  in  God  to 
send  innocent  and  harmless  infants  to  perdition." 
8 


114  CALVINISM  : 

.Now,  it  is  plain  that  whichever  of  these  two  views  of 
original  sin  be  correct,  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation 
cannot  be  the  same  upon  one  that  it  is  upon  the  other. 
Neither  can  there  be  a  blending  or  mixing  of  one  with 
the  other.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  extension  of  elec- 
tion by  the  later  Calvinism,  so  as  to  include  all  infants  as 
a  class  instead  of  a  part  of  them  as  individuals,  is  a  de- 
parture from  the  Calvinistic  system,  and  a  considerable 
modification  of  it  in  the  direction  of  Arminianism.  But 
there  is  nothing  of  this, provided  the  Calvinistic  view  of 
original  sin  is  retained  strictly  and  fully.  So  long  as  the 
later  Calvinist  holds  with  the  elder,  that  "every  sin,  both 
original  and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous 
law  of  God,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the 
sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
and  made  subject  to  death,  temporal  and  eternal "  (Con- 
fess, vi.  6),  he  stands  upon  the  very  same  theological 
ground  with  him.  He  adopts  the  same  definitions  of  sin, 
of  guilt,  of  salvation,  of  grace,  of  regeneration,  and  of 
election.  The  only  point  of  difference  is  the  minor  one 
relating  to  the  diameter  of  the  circle  of  election.  The 
only  question  between  the  parties  is,  How  many  guilty 
and  lost  dying  infants  does  the  infinite  and  unmerited 
mercy  of  God  regenerate  and  save  from  eternal  death  ? 
Though  the  elder  Calvinist  did  not,  like  the  later,  say 
that  infant  salvation  is  classical,  not  individual,  he  yet 
prepared  the  way  for  it,  by  distinguishing  between  infants 
that  are  saved  by  "  covenanted  "  mercy  and  those  that  are 
saved  by  "  uncovenanted."  Even  Augustine  indirectly 
worked  toward  this  widening  of  the  circle  of  infant  elec- 
tion in  his  assertion  that  the  sufferings  of  lost  infants  are 
"  mitissima  omnium."  He  held  with  great  positiveness  that 
original  sin  in  an  infant  is  the  inclination  of  the  will  de- 
scending and  inherited  from  Adam,  and  as  such  is  free 


PURE   AXD   MIXED  115 

agency  and  wrong  agency,  and  as  such  is  punishable  with 
the  just  penalty  of  sin.  It  would  therefore  have  been 
more  self-consistent  and  logical  in  him,  not  to  have  min- 
imized as  he  did  the  punishment  due  to  original  sin  in  an 
infant,  but  rather  to  have  magnified  the  divine  mercy  in 
saving  all  infants  from  it  instead  of  only  a  part  of  them. 
It  would  have  been  more  self-consistent  and  logical,  we 
say,  because  the  verdict  of  justice  is  a  fixed  quantity  re- 
specting the  intrinsic  demerit  of  original  sin,  whether  in 
an  infant  or  an  adult,  and  may  be  neither  increased  nor 
diminished,  but  mercy  may  be  more  or  less.  Justice  can- 
not give  two  decisions  as  to  whether  original  sin  deserves 
eternal  death  ;  but  mercy  can  give  two  decisions  as  to 
whether  it  will  or  will  not  pardon  it.  Augustine  might 
therefore  have  affirmed  the  exact  and  full  retribution  due 
to  original  sin  in  the  case  of  infants  as  in  that  of  adults, 
and  then  have  affirmed  with  the  later  Calvinist  that  the 
infinite  compassion  of  God  frees  all  of  them  from  the 
dreadful  guilt  and  penalty  by  the  blood  of  atonement.  In 
this  instance,  where  sin  abounded  grace  would  super- 
abound.  The  greater  the  penalty  to  which  the  infant  is 
exposed,  the  greater  the  mercy  in  remitting  it.  The  sal- 
vation of  an  infant  in  this  case  means  something.  Infant 
salvation  is  real ;  for  it  is  the  deliverance  of  a  soul  that  is 
really  guilty  and  liable  to  endless  woe.  And  it  is  costly  ; 
for  it  is  by  the  sacrificial  death  of  God  incarnate. 

But  if  the  other  view  of  original  sin,  namely,  that  it  is 
not  properly  sin,  and  does  not  deserve  or  bring  eternal 
death,  is  adopted  in  connection  with  the  universal  salva- 
tion of  dying  infants,  then  indeed  there  will  be  a  very 
great  departure  from  the  Calvinistic  sj'stem.  Another 
meaning  is  given  to  "  sin  "  and  to  "  salvation."  The  evil 
from  which  the  infant  is  ;'  saved  "  is  very  small,  and  the 
kindness  showed  to  him  is  very  small  also.     A  "painted 


116  CALVINISM  : 

sinner,"  as  Luther  said,  lias  only  a  "  painted  Saviour."  It 
was  this  view  of  original  sin  as  not  damning,  that  made 
many  Calvinists  in  the  seventeenth  century  afraid  to  af- 
firm the  salvation  of  all  infants  ;  because  at  that  time  the 
two  views  were  combined  together  by  the  Arminians. 
Arminian  advocates  of  universal  infant  salvation  rested  it 
upon  the  ground  that  it  would  be  unjust  to  condemn  in- 
fants to  perdition  solely  because  of  original  sin.  Their 
Calvinistic  opponents,  such  as  Owen,  for  example,  regarded 
this  as  a  fatal  error,  leading  logically  to  conclusions  re- 
specting the  nature  of  sin  and  salvation,  from  which  prob- 
ably some  of  the  evangelical  Arminians  themselves  would 
have  shrunk.  Had  the  doctrine  of  the  guilt  and  damna- 
bility  of  original  sin  in  infants  been  conceded,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  Calvinists  generally  of  that  century  might 
have  been  more  ready,  with  Calvinists  generally  of  this, 
to  make  the  circle  of  election  large  enough  to  include  all 
dying  infants,  and  not  a  part  only.  For  they  had  no  dis- 
position to  contract  and  minimize  the  extent  of  God's  de- 
cree of  election,  but  every  disposition  to  widen  it,  provided 
Scripture  gave  warrant  for  it.  In  the  present  controversy 
respecting  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  this 
difference  between  the  two  views  of  original  sin  should  be 
kept  distinctly  in  mind.  The  Confession  is  explicit  in 
teaching  the  culpability  of  original  sin  ;  and  we  have  seen 
no  proposition  to  strike  this  teaching  out  of  it.  This  tenet, 
consequently,  must  go  along  with  that  of  infant  salvation. 
The  mercy  of  God  saves  the  "  little  children  "  from  the 
very  same  common  depravity  and  guilt  that  is  in  their 
parents,  and  from  the  very  same  dreadful  penalty  that 
righteously  overhangs  "the  carnal  mind,  which  is  enmity 
against  God,  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither  in- 
deed can  be"  (Rom.  8  :  7).  In  this  case,  the  mercy  of  God 
is  immense,  because  it  pardons  and  eradicates  an  immense 


PURE   AND   MIXED  117 

sin ;  for  the  sin  of  heart  and  inclination  is  greater  than 
that  of  act  and  outward  conduct,  because  it  is  the  source 
and  poison  of  the  whole  of  it.  On  the  other  theory,  the 
mercy  of  God  is  small  ;  for  the  only  sin  that  is  really  for- 
given, is  that  of  actual  transgression. 

The  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  infants  is  tempered 
and  mitigated  by  that  of  their  salvation.  This  is  often 
overlooked,  either  ignorantly  or  designedly,  by  the  oppo- 
nents of  Calvinism.  It  does  not  follow  that  because  a 
human  being  deserves  to  go  to  hell  for  sin,  he  actually  will 
go  there.  His  sin  may  be  pardoned  and  eradicated.  The 
truth,  but  not  the  whole  truth,  is  told,  when  it  is  merely 
said  that  Calvinism  teaches  the  damnation  of  infants.  It 
teaches  their  salvation  also.  This  is  true  even  if  the  sal- 
vation is  only  of  the  infants  of  believers,  as  in  the  elder 
Calvinism  ;  and  is  still  more  so,  if  the  salvation  is  of  all 
infants  as  in  the  later  Calvinism.  When,  therefore,  the 
enemy  of  this  creed  stops  with  the  first  statement,  he  is 
like  a  false  witness  in  court,  who  after  relating  one  fact  is 
silent  upon  another  which  ought  to  be  mentioned  along 
with  it,  and  which  is  requisite  in  order  to  put  the  judge 
and  jury  in  possession  of  the  whole  case.  A  falsehood 
may  be  told  concerning  a  theological  system,  as  well  by 
not  speaking  the  whole  truth,  as  by  uttering  a  direct  lie. 
And  there  is  considerable  of  such  falsehood  current.  Au- 
gustine and  Calvin  both  held  that  infants,  like  adults,  are 
children  of  Adam,  responsibh7  sinned  and  fell  with  him  in 
the  first  transgression,  and  are  justly  involved  with  him  in 
the  same  condemnation  to  eternal  death.  "  In  Adam  all 
die,"  1  Cor.  15  :  22.  But  both  alike  held  that  the  saving 
grace  of  God  pardons  and  eradicates  original  sin  in  in- 
fants, upon  the  same  principles,  and  by  the  same  method 
of  election  that  it  pardons  and  eradicates  any  and  all  sin, 
namely,  through  the  vicarious  satisfaction  of  Christ  and 


118  CALVINISM  : 

the  regenerating  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  true 
that  they  did  not  find  proof  in  Scripture  that  infant  elec- 
tion is  classical,  and  therefore  left  it  individual  like  that  of 
adults.  But  had  they,  like  their  successors  in  the  Modern 
church,  seen  reason  in  the  Word  of  God  for  believing  that 
the  Divine  mercy  is  extended  to  all  infants  as  infants,  in- 
stead of  to  a  part,  they  would  have  gladly  affirmed  this. 
It  is  only  a  question  of  exegesis  between  them  and  their 
successors  ;  and  this  turns  upon  the  point  whether  the 
Saviour's  declaration,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God," 
means,  "  Of  all  such,"  or,  "  Of  some  of  such." 

On  page  132  we  contend  that  the  first  is  the  most  natu- 
ral understanding  of  the  words  of  Christ,  and  we  also 
think  that  it  is  the  most  natural  understanding  of  the 
Assembly's  phraseology  respecting  "  elect  infants  dying  in 
infancy."  There  are  two  interpretations  of  this  Confes- 
sional phrase.  One  makes  the  antithesis  to  be,  "  non-elect 
infants  dying  in  infancy  ;  "  the  other  makes  it  to  be, 
"elect  infants  not  dying  in  infancy."  According  to  the 
first  view,  the  contrast  is  between  the  elect  and  the  non- 
elect,  in  which  case  the  election  of  dying  infants  is  indi- 
vidual. There  are  some  non-elect  dying  infants.  Ac- 
cording to  the  last,  it  is  between  two  different  classes  of 
the  elect,  in  which  case  the  election  of  dying  infants  is 
classical.  There  are  no  non-elect  dying  infants.  That 
the  last  view  is  the  correct  one  is  evident,  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : 

1.  Whenever  the  contrast  between  the  elect  and  non- 
elect  is  intended  in  the  Westminster  Standards,  both 
classes  are  particularly  mentioned  and  particularly  de- 
scribed. See  Con.  iii.  3,  6,  7  ;  L.  C.  13,  68.  But  in 
Con.  x.  3,  when  dying  infants  are  spoken  of,  mention  is 
made  only  of  the  elect,  and  a  description  is  given  of  them 
alone.     In  view,  therefore,  of  the  fact  that  the  Assembly 


PURE   AND   MIXED  119 

invariably  mention  and  describe  the  non-elect  in  connec- 
tion with  the  elect,  whenever,  in  their  opinion,  there  are 
any  non-elect,  the  natural  inference  from  this  silence  of 
the  Assembly  concerning  non-elect  dying  infants  is,  that 
they  did  not  mean  to  teach  that  there  are  any. 

2.  All  of  the  elect  are  elected  as  infants  in  the  womb. 
Jer.  1:5;  Luke  1  :  15  ;  Rom.  9  :  10-12  ;  Gal.  1  :  15. 
There  is  no  election  of  men  as  adults  or  in  adult  years. 
Consequently,  the  phrase  "'elect  infants"  is  the  only  one 
that  designates  the  entire  body  of  the  elect.  As  in  law, 
"  infants  "  means  all  persons  under  age,  so  in  the  Westmin- 
ster theology,  "  elect  infants  "  means  all  persons  who  are 
chosen  to  eternal  life  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world." 
This  being  so,  "elect  infants"  fall  into  three  classes  with 
reference  to  the  time  of  their  death  and  their  regeneration. 
(a)  "Elect  infants  "who  die  in  infancy  and  are  regener- 
ated in  infancy,  (b)  "Elect  infants"  who  do  not  die  in 
infancy  but  are  regenerated  in  infancy,  (c)  "  Elect  in- 
fants"  who  do  not  die  in  infancy  but  are  regenerated  in 
years  of  discretion.  The  object  of  the  declaration  in  Con. 
x.  3,  is  to  describe  the  manner  in  which  the  regeneration 
of  the  first  class  of  "elect  infants  "  (and,  incidentally,  also 
of  the  second)  is  effected  as  compared  with  that  of  the  third 
class.  It  declares  that  such  "  elect  infants"  as  die  in  in- 
fancy "are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the 
Spirit,"  without  the  outward  call  and  conviction  of  sin. 
This  distinguishes  them  (and  also,  incidentally,  the  second 
class,  who  also  are  regenerated  in  infancy  but  do  not  die 
in  infancy)  from  the  third  class  of  "elect  infants,"  who 
come  to  years  of  discretion,  and  not  having  been  regen- 
erated in  infancy,  are  then  "  regenerated  and  saved  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit,"  in  connection  with  the  out- 
ward call  and  conviction  of  sin  by  the  law,  written  or 
unwritten.     The  true  antithesis,  consequently,  to  "elect 


120  CALVINISM  : 

infants  dying  in  infancy  "  is  "  elect  infants  not  d}7ing  in 
infancy,"  and  not  non-elect  infants  dying  in  infancy. 

That  this  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
"  elect  infants,"  is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the  orig- 
inal draft  of  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  Confession  did  not 
contain  this  third  section,  being  wholly  silent  concerning 
dying  elect  infants  and  elect  heathen  ;  and  the  Assembly 
instructed  its  committee  to  insert  a  section  relating  (a)  to 
the  manner  of  regeneration  when  there  can  be  no  outward 
call  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word  and  no  conviction  of  sin, 
as  in  the  case  of  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy ;  and  (b)  to 
the  manner  of  regeneration  in  the  case  of  "  all  other  elect 
persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  [written]  Word,"  but  who  are  capable 
of  conviction  of  sin  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
unwritten.  These  latter  belong  to  the  third  class  of 
"  elect  infants."  An  adult  heathen  who  was  elected  in 
infancy  but  not  regenerated  in  infancy,  is  "  regenerated 
by  Christ  through  the  Spirit  who  worketh  when,  and 
where,  and  how  he  pleaseth."  The  regeneration  in  this 
instance  occurs  in  adult  years,  and  is  effected  in  connec- 
tion with  conviction  of  sin  ;  but  the  instrument  employed 
by  the  divine  Spirit  in  this  conviction  is  not  the  written 
law,  but  the  unwritten,  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  in  Rom.  2: 
14,  15. 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  121 


XII. 
THE  WESTMINSTER  STANDARDS  AND  THE  "LARGER  HOPE"1 

The  doctrines  of  Calvinism  formulated  in  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards  are  represented  by  many  persons  as  destin- 
ing the  vast  majority  of  the  human  race  to  an  eternity  of 
sin  and  misery.  They  are  pessimistic,  it  is  said  ;  envelop- 
ing this  brief  human  life  in  gloom  and  darkness.  The 
elect  are  very  few ;  and  the  non-elect  are  very  many. 
Practically,  the  human  species  is  lost  forever,  like  the  devil 
and  his  angels.  Over  this  theological  system  they  would 
write  the  Dantean  inscription  on  the  portal  of  Hell,  "All 
hope  abandon,  ye  who  enter  here."  We  shall  endeavor 
to  show  that  this  estimate  is  utterly  erroneous,  and  that 
"  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the  Scriptures,1'  and 
presented  in  the  Confession,  teaches  that  an  immense  ma- 
jority of  the  human  family  will  be  saved  by  the  redemp- 
tion of  the  dying  and  risen  Son  of  God  and  Lord  of  Glory, 
and  that  the  "larger  hope"  has  ample  scope  and  verge 
enough  within  its  limits. 

Calvinism  emphasizes  the  doctrine  of  regeneration:  the 
doctrine,  namely,  that  God  by  an  instantaneous  act  im- 
parts the  principle  of  spiritual  life  to  the  sinful  soul  with- 
out its  co-operation  or  assistance,  so  that  the  new  birth  is 
not  dependent  upon,  or  conditioned  by,  man's  agency. 
Men  who  are  "born  again"  are  "born  not  of  blood,  nor 
of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 

1  In  part,  from  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  May,  1889. 


122  CALVINISM  : 

God  "  (John  1 :  13).  This  doctrine  runs  all  through  the 
Westminster  Standards.  It  is  closely  connected  with  the 
tenet  of  election,  for  this  regulates  the  bestowment  of 
regenerating  grace.  Effectual  calling  includes  it,  for  a 
prominent  factor  in  this  is  that  work  of  God  whereby  he 
"  takes  away  the  heart  of  stone,  and  gives  the  heart  of 
flesh "  (Conf.  x.  1).  In  thus  magnifying  regeneration, 
the  Confession  accords  with  Revelation.  For  on  look- 
ing into  the  Scriptures,  we  find  that  the  salvation  of  the 
human  soul  is  made  to  depend  absolutely  upon  the  new 
birth.  Christ  said  to  Nicodemus,  "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  implies 
that  every  man  who  is  born  again  will  see  the  kingdom  of 
God.  Regeneration,  consequently,  decides  human  des- 
tiny. Whoever  knows  how  many  of  the  human  famity 
shall  have  been  quickened  from  spiritual  death  to  spirit- 
ual life,  by  the  mercy  of  God  the  Holy  Spirit,  knows  how 
many  of  them  shall  be  saved.  Regeneration  determines 
human  salvation,  because  it  produces  everything  requisite 
to  it.  The  great  act  of  faith  in  the  blood  of  Christ,  by 
which  the  sinner  is  justified,  is  described  as  dependent 
upon  it.  "  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  God  "  (1  John  5 :  1).  "  No  man  can  come  to 
me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me  draw  him  " 
(John  6  :  44).  "  Ye  believed,  even  as  the  Lord  gave  to 
every  man  "  (1  Cor.  3  :  5).  "  As  many  as  were  ordained 
to  eternal  life,  believed  "  (Acts  13  :  48).  "  Unto  you  it  is 
given  in  the  behalf  of  Christ,  to  believe  on  him  "  (Phil. 
1 :  29).  "  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  ;  and 
that  not  of  yourselves  :  it  is  the  gift  of  God  "  (Eph.  2  :  S). 
"  Christ  is  the  author  and  finisher  of  faith  "  (Heb.  12  :  2). 
Faith,  repentance,  justification,  and  sanctification  all  result 
naturally  and  infallibly  from  that  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
whereby  he  "quickens"  the  soul  "dead  in  trespasses  and 


PURE   AND   MIXED  123 

sins  "  (Eph.  2:1),  and  by  "  enlightening  the  mind,  and 
renewing  the  will,  persuades  and  enables  man  to  embrace 
Jesus  Christ,  freely  offered  to  him  in  the  gospel  "  (Shorter 
Catechism,  31).  Regeneration  is  thus  the  root  from 
which  the  whole  process  of  salvation  springs.  The  regen- 
erate child,  youth,  or  man,  immediately  believes,  repents, 
and  begins  the  struggle  with  remaining  sin.  The  regen- 
erate infant  believes,  repents,  and  begins  the  struggle  with 
remaining  sin  the  moment  his  faculties  admit  of  such 
activities.  He  has  latent  or  potential  faith,  repentance, 
and  sanctification. 

How  extensive  then  is  regeneration,  is  the  great  ques- 
tion. In  Scripture  and  in  the  Confession  it  is  represented 
to  be  as  extensive  as  election,  and  no  more  so.  "  Whom 
he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he 
called,  them  he  also  justified  ;  and  whom  he  justified, 
them  he  also  glorified  "  (Rom.  8  :  30).  "  All  those  whom 
God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he  is 
pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to 
call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  the  state  of  sin  and 
death,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ "  (Conf.  x. 
1).  In  attempting,  therefore,  to  answer  approximately 
that  question  which  our  Lord  declined  to  answer  definitely, 
namely,  "  Are  there  few  that  be  saved  ?  "  it  is  necessary, 
first,  to  determine  the  period  within  which  the  regenerat- 
ing operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  occurs ;  and,  secondly, 
the  range  of  his  operation. 

Respecting  the  first  point,  revelation  teaches  that  the 
new  birth  is  confined  to  earth  and  time.  There  is  not  a 
passage  in  Scripture  which,  either  directly  or  by  implica- 
tion, asserts  that  the  Holy  Ghost  will  exert  his  regenerat- 
ing power  in  the  soul  of  man  in  any  part  of  that  endless 
duration  which  succeeds  this  life.  The  affirmation,,'"  My 
Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man "  (Gen.   6  :  3), 


124  CALVINISM  : 

proves  that  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  will  not  be  ever- 
lading  ;  and  the  accompanying  declaration,  "Yet  his 
days  shall  be  a  hundred  and  twenty  years,'"  implies  that 
it  will  be  coterminous  with  man's  mortal  life.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  Old  Testament,  the  death  of  the  body  is  rep- 
resented as  the  decisive  epoch  in  man's  existence,  and  this 
earthly  life  the  period  during  which  his  endless  destiny  is 
determined.  "  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wick- 
edness [at  death]  ;  but  the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his 
death  "  (Prov.  14  :  32).  "  When  a  wicked  man  diet  A,  his 
expectation  shall  perish"  (Prov.  11 :  7).  "If  thou  warn 
the  wicked  of  his  way  to  turn  from  it ;  if  he  do  not  turn 
from  his  way,  lie  shall  die  in  his  iniquity  "  (Ezek.  33  :  9). 
"  To  him  that  is  joined  to  all  the  living,  there  is  hope  :  for 
the  living  know  that  they  shall  die ;  but  the  dead  know 
not  anything,  neither  have  they  any  more  a  reward " 
(Eccl.  9  :  4—6).  "  In  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of 
thee  ;  in  the  grave,  who  shall  give  thee  thanks?  "  (Ps.  6  : 
5).  "  Wilt  thou  show  wonders  to  the  dead?  Shall  the 
dead  arise  and  praise  thee?  Shall  thy  loving-kindness  be 
declared  in  the  grave?"  (Ps.  88:10,  11).  In  the  New 
Testament,  the  Saviour  of  man  also  makes  death  to  be  the 
critical  point  in  man's  history.  lie  says  to  the  Pharisees, 
"  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins" 
(John  8:21,  24).  This  solemn  warning,  which  he  twice 
repeats,  loses  all  its  force,  if  to  die  in  sin  is  not  to  be  hope- 
lessly lost.  Christ  teaches  the  same  truth  in  the  parable 
of  Dives.  The  rich  man  asks  that  his  brethren  may  be 
exhorted  to  faith  and  repentance  before  they  die,  because 
if  impenitent  at  death  as  he  was,  they  will  go  to  "  hell  " 
as  he  did,  and  be  "  in  torments"  as  he  was.  And  he 
teaches  the  same  truth  in  his  frequent  warning,  "  Watch, 
therefore,  for  ye  know  not  at  what  hour  your  Lord  Com- 
eth "  (Matt.    24:42).     The  Apostolical  Epistles  declare 


PURE   AND   MIXED  125 

the  momentous  nature  of  death,  in  their  frequent  asser- 
tion of  "  an  accepted  time,"  and  of  "the  day  of  salva- 
tion "  (2  Cor.  6:2;  Ileb.  3  :  7-19  ;  4:7).  The  closing  np 
of  the  Word  of  God  by  St.  John,  affirms  a  finality  that 
evidently  refers  to  what  man  has  been  and  done  here  on 
earth.  "  lie  that  is  unjust,  let  him  be  unjust  still;  and 
he  which  is  filthy,  let  him  be  filthy  still ;  and  he  that  is 
righteous,  let  him  be  righteous  still  ;  and  he  that  is  holv, 
let  him  be  holy  still "  (Rev.  22  :  11,  12). 

Still  further  proof  that  death  is  the  deciding  point  in 
man's  existence,  is  found  in  those  effects  of  regeneration 
which  have  been  spoken  of.  Faith,  repentance,  hope, 
and  struggle  with  remaining  sin  are  never  represented  in 
Scripture  as  occurring  in  the  future  life.  After  death  the 
regenerate  walks  by  sight,  not  by  faith  ;  has  fruition  in- 
stead of  hope  ;  and  is  completely  sanctified.  Faith,  re- 
pentance, hope,  and  progressive  sanctification  are  de- 
scribed as  going  on  up  to  a  certain  point  denominated 
"  the  end,"  when  they  give  place  to  sinless  perfection. 
"  He  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved  :  "  the  end 
of  this  state  of  existence,  not  of  the  intermediate  state. 
"  We  desire  that  every  one  of  you  do  show  the  same 
diligence  to  the  full  assurance  of  hope  unto  the  end." 
"  Christ  shall  confirm  you  unto  the  end."  "Whose  house 
are  we,  if  we  hold  fast  the  confidence  and  the  rejoicing  of 
the  hope  unto  the  end."  In  all  such  passages,  the  end  of 
this  mortal  life  is  meant.  And  to  them  must  be  added 
the  important  eschatological  paragraph,  1  Cor.  15  :  24-28, 
which  teaches  that  there  is  an  "  end"  to  Christ's  work  of 
mediation  and  salvation,  when  "  there  remaineth  no  more 
sacrifice  for  sins  "  (Ileb.  10  :  26). 

The  large  amount  of  matter  in  Scripture  which  teaches 
that  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the  new  birth  and  its 
effects  belongs  only  to  this  life,  cannot  be  invalidated  by 


126  CALVINISM  : 

the  lonely  text  concerning  Christ's  "  preaching  to  the 
spirits  in  prison  : "  a  passage  which  the  majority  of  exe- 
getes,  taking  in  all  ages  of  the  Church,  refer  to  the  preach- 
ing of  Noah  and  other  "  ambassadors  of  Christ ; "  but 
which,  even  if  referred  to  a  personal  descent  of  Christ  into 
an  nnder  world,  would  he  inadequate  to  establish  such  a 
revolutionizing  doctrine  as  the  prolongation  of  Christ's 
mediatorial  work  into  the  future  state,  the  preaching  of 
the  gospel  in  sheol,  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
there.  For  the  dogma  of  a  future  redemption  for  all 
the  unevaugelized  part  of  mankind  is  radically  revolution- 
izing. It  is  another  gospel,  and  if  adopted  would  result 
in  another  Christendom.  For  nearly  twenty  centuries,  the 
Church  has  gone  upon  the  belief  that  there  is  no  salvation 
after  death.  All  of  its  conquests  over  evil  have  come  from 
preaching  the  solemn  truth  that  "  now  is  the  day  of  salva- 
tion." It  has  believed  itself  to  be  commanded  to  proclaim 
that  "  after  death  is  the  judgment  "  of  sin,  not  its  forgive- 
ness. But  if  the  Church  has  been  mistaken,  and  there  is 
a  "  probation"  in  the  future  life  for  all  the  unevangelized 
of  all  the  centuries,  and  it  is  announced,  as  all  the  truth 
of  God  ought  to  be,  then  the  eternal  world  will  present  a 
totally  different  aspect  from  what  it  has.  Heretofore  the 
great  Hereafter  has  been  a  gulf  of  darkness  for  every  im- 
penitent man,  heathen  or  nominal  Christian,  as  he  peered 
into  it.  Now  it  will  be  a  darkness  through  which  gleams 
o£  light  and  hope  are  flashing  like  an  aurora.  The  line 
between  time  and  eternity,  so  sharply  drawn  by  the  past 
Christianity  and  Christendom,  must  be  erased.  A  differ- 
ent preaching  must  be  adopted.  Hope  must  be  held  out 
instead  of  the  old  hopelessness.  Death  must  no  longer  be 
represented  as  a  finality,  but  as  an  entrance  for  all  une- 
vangelized mankind  upon  another  period  of  regeneration 
and  salvation.     Men  must  be  told  that  the  Semiramises 


PUTSE   AND    MIXED  127 

and  Cleopatras,  the  Tiberiuses  and  Neros,  may  possibly 
have  accepted  the  gospel  in  hades.  Children  in  the  Sab- 
bath-schools must  be  taught  that  the  vicious  and  hardened 
populations  of  the  ancient  world,  of  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, of  Babylon  and  Nineveh,  of  Antioch  and  Rome, 
passed  into  a  world  of  hope  and  redemption,  not  of  justice 
and  judgment. 

Such  a  doctrine  takes  away  all  the  seriousness  of  this 
existence.  The  "  threescore  years  and  ten  "  are  no  longer 
momentous  in  their  consequences.  If  the  future  world  is 
a  series  of  cycles,  within  any  one  of  which  the  transition 
from  sin  to  holiness,  from  death  to  life,  may  occur,  all  the 
solemnity  is  removed  from  earth  and  time.  The  "  now  " 
is  not  "  the  accepted  time,  and  the  day  of  salvation." 
One  "  time  "  is  of  no  more  consequence  than  another,  if 
through  all  endless  time  the  redemption  of  sinners  is  go- 
ing on.  And  what  is  still  more  important,  the  moral  and 
practical  effects  of  this  theory  will  be  most  disastrous. 
For  it  is  virtually  a  license  to  sin.  Should  God  announce 
that  he  will  regenerate  and  pardon  men  in  the  next  world, 
it  would  be  equivalent  to  saying  to  them  that  they  may 
continue  to  sin  in  this  world.  And,  of  course,  if  the 
Church  should  believe  that  all  the  unevangelized  portion 
of  mankind  may  be  saved  in  the  intermediate  state,  it  will 
make  little  effort  to  save  them  here  and  now. 

With  these  representations  of  Scripture,  respecting  the 
period  of  time  within  which  the  regeneration  and  salva- 
tion of  the  soul  occur,  the  Westminster  Standards  agree. 
"  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death  made  perfect  in 
holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory  "  (S.  C.  37). 
"  The  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  their  death  cast  into 
hell "  (L.  C.  86).  The  Confessional  doctrine  is,  that  death 
is  a  finality  for  both  the  saint  and  sinner.  There  is  no 
extirpation  of  sin  after  "  the  spirit  returns  to  God  who 


128  CALVINISM  : 

gave  it."  At  death,  the  unregenerate  man  is  left  in  sin. 
At  death,  the  regenerate  but  imperfectly  sanctified  man 
is  made  perfect  in  holiness.  The  gradual  process  of  pro- 
gressive sanctification  from  the  remainders  of  original 
corruption,  is  confined  to  this  life.  So  the  Scriptures 
teach.  "  Blessed  are  the  dead  that  die  in  the  Lord  from 
henceforth  [i.e.,  from  the  time  of  their  death]  :  Yea, 
saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their  labors" 
(Rev.  14 :  13).  "  There  remaineth  a  rest  to  the  people 
of  God.  Let  us  therefore  labor  to  enter  into  t\i&t  rest 
(Ileb.  4:  9,  11).  This  "rest"  is  total  cessation  from  the 
temptation,  the  race,  and  the  fight  with  sin  which  charac- 
terize the  present  imperfect  state.  "  To  be  absent  from 
the  body,  is  to  be  present  with  the  Lord  "  (2  Cor.  5:8); 
and  to  be  present  with  the  Lord  is  to  "  see  him  as  he  is;  " 
and  to  see  him  as  he  is,  is  to  "  be  like  him,"  sinless  and 
perfect  (1  John  3 :  2). 

The  doctrine  that  gradual  sanctification  from,  sin  con- 
tinues to  go  on  after  death  implies,  not  rest,  but  strug- 
gle, strain,  toil,  and  conflict  with  remaining  corruption. 
This  would  be  a  continuation  in  the  next  life  of  that  se- 
vere experience  in  this  life  in  which  the  believer  "  groans 
being  burdened ; "  in  which  he  is  often  worsted  in  the 
contest,  though  victorious  in  the  main  ;  in  which  he  cries, 
"O  wretched  man,  who  shall  deliver  me."  To  suppose 
such  a  wearisome  condition  of  the  believer's  soul  during 
the  long  period  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  can- 
not be  harmonized  with  the  descriptions  of  the  restful, 
joyful  consciousness  of  believers  when  they  are  "  with  the 
Lord,"  and  with  the  words  of  Christ,  "  This  day  shalt 
thou  be  with  me  in  paradise." 

The  notion  that  indwelling  sin  is  to  be  purged  away 
gradually  after  death,  instead  of  instantaneously  at  death, 
is  the  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  Romish 


PURE   AND   MIXED  12!) 

purgatory  is  the  progressive  sanctification  of  a  member 
of  the  Romish  Church  carried  over  into  the  intermediate 
state.  If  this  theory  is  introduced  into  the  Protestant 
Church,  it  will  not  stop  here.  For  if  regenerate  hut 
imperfectly  sanctified  men  are  to  go  on,  between  death 
and  the  resurrection,  struggling  with  corruption,  and  get- 
ting rid  of  remaining  sin,  as  they  do  here  upon  earth,  it 
will  be  an  easy  and  natural  step  to  the  kindred  theory 
that  the  transition  from  sin  to  holiness  may  be  made  by 
unregenerate  men  also  during  this  same  period.  Those 
who  adopt  this  latter  error,  object  to  the  Confessional 
tenet  of  complete  sanctification  at  death  by  the  immediate 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  it  is  magical,  mechanical, 
and  unpsychological.  It  is  incompatible,  they  assert,  with 
the  spiritual  nature  of  the  soul  and  its  free  agency.  But 
it  is  no  more  so  than  the  co-ordinate  and  cognate  doctrine 
of  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  regener- 
ation. The  Holy  Spirit  instantaneously  implants  the  new 
principle  of  divine  life  in  the  soul,  when  he  "  creates  it 
anew  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  "quickens  it  from  its  death  in 
trespasses  and  sins."  This  lays  the  foundation,  as  we 
have  observed  for  the  whole  process  of  salvation.  From 
this  instantaneous  regeneration,  there  result  conversion  in 
its  two  acts  of  faith  and  repentance,  justification,  and  pro- 
gressive sanctification  up  to  the  moment  of  death,  when 
the  same  Divine  Agent  by  the  exercise  of  the  same 
almighty  energy  by  which  he  instantaneously  began  the 
work  of  salvation,  instantaneously  completes  it.1  Now, 
if  the  Holy  Ghost  works  magically,  mechanically,  and 
contrary  to  the  nature  of  the  human  soul  in  one  case,  he 
does  in  the  other.  If  the  completion  of  the  work  in  the 
soul  by  an  immediate  act  is  liable  to  this  charge,  the  be- 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  subject,  see  the  Author's  Sermons  to 
the  Spiritual  Man,  pp.  317-325. 
9 


130  CALVINISM  : 

ginning  of  it  is  also.  Any  one  who  holds  the  doctrine  of 
instantaneous  regeneration,  is  estopped  from  urging  such 
an  objection  as  this  to  the  doctrine  of  complete  sanctifica- 
tion  at  death.  In  all  the  operations  of  the  third  Person  of 
the  Trinity,  be  they  instantaneous  or  be  they  gradual,  he 
contradicts  none  of  the  laws  and  properties  of  the  human 
mind,  but  works  in  the  human  will  "  to  will,"  according 
to  its  nature  and  constitution.  There  is  nothing:  magical, 
mechanical,  or  unpsychological  in  any  of  them. 

Another  objection  urged  by  the  advocates  of  a  future 
sanctification  from  sin  is,  that  complete  sanctification  at 
death  puts  all  souls,  infant  and  adult,  on  a  dead  level, 
destroying  the  distinction  of  grade  between  them.  If  at 
death  all  regenerate  souls  are  made  perfectly  sinless  and 
holy,  it  is  said  that  they  must  be  all  alike  in  the 
scope  and  reach  of  their  faculties.  This  does  not  follow. 
Complete  sanctification  at  death  frees  the  soul  of  a  regen- 
erate infant  from  all  remainders  of  the  corruption  in- 
herited from  Adam,  but  does  not  convert  it  into  an  adult 
soul,  any  more  than  the  complete  sanctification  of  an  or- 
dinary regenerate  adult  makes  him  equal  in  mental  power 
to  St.  Paul  or  St.  Augustine.  Complete  sanctification  at 
death  frees  the  infant's  soul,  the  child's  soul,  the  youth's 
soul,  the  man's  soul,  from  indwelling  sin,  but  leaves  each 
soul  in  the  same  class  in  which  it  finds  it,  and  starts  it  on 
an  endless  expansion  of  its  faculties  and  its  holiness,  and 
not  upon  a  long,  wearing  struggle  with  remaining  corrup- 
tion. In  this  way,  "  one  star  differeth  from  another  star 
in  glory,"  while  all  are  equally  and  alike  the  pure  and 
gleaming  stars  of  heaven,  not  the  "  wandering  stars"  of 
sin  and  hell. 

Such,  then,  is  the  period  of  time  to  which  the  regener- 
ating work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  confined.  It  is  the  life 
that  now  is,  not  the  life  that  is  to  come;  the  present 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  131 

limited  aeon,  not  the  future  unlimited  seon.  We  proceed 
now  to  consider  the  second  question,  How  wide  and  exten- 
sive is  his  agency  during  this  period  ?  How  many  of  the 
human  family,  have  we  reason  from  Scripture  to  hope 
and  believe,  he  will  regenerate  here  upon  earth  ? 

Before  proceeding  to  answer  this  question,  a  prelimin- 
ary remark  is  to  be  made.  It  is  utterly  improbable  that 
such  a  stupendous  miracle  as  the  incarnation,  humilia- 
tion, passion,  and  crucifixion  of  one  of  the  Persons  of  the 
Godhead,  should  yield  a  small  and  insignificant  result ; 
that  this  amazing  mystery  of  mysteries,  "  which  the  angels 
desire  to  look  into,"  and  which  involves  such  an  immense 
personal  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Being, 
should  have  a  lame  and  impotent  conclusion.  On  a  priori 
grounds,  therefore,  we  have  reason  to  conclude  that  the 
Gospel  of  the  Cross  will  be  successful,  and  the  Christian 
religion  a  triumph  on  the  earth  and  among  the  race  of 
creatures  for  whom  it  was  intended.  But  this  can  hardly 
be  the  case,  if  only  a  small  fraction  of  the  human  family 
are  saved.  The  presumption,  consequently,  is  that  the 
great  majority  of  mankind,  not  the  small  minority  of  it, 
will  be  the  subjects  of  redeeming  grace.  What,  then,  is 
the  teaching  of  Revelation  upon  this  subject? 

1.  In  the  first  place,  we  have  ground  for  believing  that 
all  of  mankind  who  die  in  infancy  will  be  regenerated  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  proof  of  this  is  not  so  abundant  as 
for  some  other  doctrines,  but  it  is  sufficient  for  faith,  (a) 
Scripture  certainly  teaches  that  the  children  of  the  regen- 
erate are  "  bound  up  in  the  bundle  of  life  "  with  their 
parents.  "  The  promise  [of  the  Holy  Spirit]  is  unto  you 
and  your  children  "  (Acts  2  :  38,  39).  "  If  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches"  (Horn.  11  :  16).  "The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband ;  else  were  your 


132  CALVINISM: 

children  unclean,  but  now  they  are  holy"  (1  Cor.  7  :  14). 
This  is  salvation  by  covenanted  mercy,  concerning  which 
there  is  little  dispute,  (b)  The  salvation  of  infants  out- 
side of  the  covenant,  is  plainly  supported  by  the  language 
of  Christ  respecting  "  little  children  "  as  a  special  class. 
"  They  brought  unto  him  infants  that  he  would  touch 
them.  And  he  said,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God  "  (Luke  18  :  15, 16). 
The  reason  here  assigned  why  infants  constitute  a  part 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  their  infancy,  not  their  mor- 
al character.  They  belong  to  it  solely  because  the}'  are 
"  little  children,"  not  because  they  are  sinless.  Our  Lord 
teaches  that  they  are  sinful,  in  saying,  "  Suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me  ; "  for  no  siniess  beings  need  to 
come  to  a  Saviour.  This  phraseology  respecting  infants 
is  as  all-inclusive  as  that  respecting  the  "  poor  in  spirit," 
and  cannot  be  restricted  to  a  part  of  them.  When  Christ 
says,  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  he  means  that  this  kingdom  belongs  to 
them  as  poor  in  spirit,  and  because  they  are  poor  in  spirit, 
and  consequently  belongs  to  all  the  poor  in  spirit.  And, 
similarly,  when  he  says,  "  Suffer  little  children  to  conic 
unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  he  means 
that  this  kingdom  is  composed  of  such  considered  as  little 
children,  and  because  they  are  little  children,  and  conse- 
quently is  composed  of  all  the  little  children.  Had  he 
intended  to  limit  his  statement  to  some  infants,  he  would 
have  said,  e'/c  twv  tolgvtwv  icrrlv.  Infancy  is  an  age 
that  is  singled  out  by  the  Saviour  by  which  to  prove  a 
membership  in  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  very  age 
itself,  and  is  the  only  age.  He  does  not  say  that  youths 
or  adults  constitute  a  part  of  the  kingdom  of  God  solely 
because  of  their  youth,  or  their  manhood.  Other  Scripture 
proofs  of  the  salvation  of  infants  are,  Matt.  IS  :  10,  14, 


PURE   AND   MIXED  133 

"  Their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  in 
heaven.  It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven 
that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish/'  In  2  Sam. 
12:23,  David  is  confident  of  the  salvation  of  his  infant 
child;  but  in  2  Sain.  18:  33,  he  is  not  confident  of  the  sal- 
vation of  his  adult  son.  In  Jonah  4 :  11,  God  expresses  a 
special  interest  in  the  infant  population  of  Nineveh. 

The  Protestant  Church  understands  the  Bible  to  de- 
clare that  all  who  die  in  infancy  die  regenerate.  Probably 
all  evangelical  denominations,  without  committing  them- 
selves to  the  statements  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
concerning  "election,"  would  be  willing  to  say  that  all 
dying  infants  "  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and 
how  he  pleaseth  "  (Conf.  x.  3).  But  this  is  the  regenera- 
tion and  salvation  of  one-half  of  the  human  family.  This 
of  itself  pours  over  human  existence  a  mild  and  cheering 
light.  "  Whom  the  gods  love,  die  young,'1  said  the  heathen, 
without  any  knowledge  of  God's  compassion  for  man  in 
his  "dear  Son."  Much  mare,  then,  may  the  Christian 
under  the  irradiation  of  the  gospel  expect  that  the  infinite 
mercy  of  God,  by  "  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  will  bring  all  the  "little  chil- 
dren "  into  holiness  and  heaven.  The  gloom  of  Virgil's 
description, 

"Continno  auditse  voces,  vagitus  et  ingens 
Infantunique  animse  flentes  in  limine  primo," 

is  changed  into  the  brightness  of  that  of  the  prophet, 
"The  streets  of  the  city  shall  be  full  of  boys  and  girls 
playing  in  the  streets  thereof  "  (Zech.  8  :  10) ;  and  of  the 
Redeemer's  citation  from  the  Psalms,  "Out  of  the  month 
of  babes  and  sucklings  thou  hast  perfected  praise"  (Matt. 
21  :  16). 


134  Calvinism  : 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confes- 
sion teach  the  regeneration  of  a  vast  multitude,  from 
Adam  down,  who  come  under  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  iu  connection  with  the  special  revelation  and  the 
external  means  of  grace,  in  the  antediluvian,  patriarchal, 
Jewish,  and  Christian  Churches. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession 
teach  that  the  Divine  Spirit  exerts  his  regenerating  grace, 
to  some  extent,  within  adult  heathendom,  making  use  of 
conscience,  or  "  the  law  written  on  the  heart,"  as  the 
means  of  convicting  of  sin  preparatory  to  imparting  the 
new  divine  life ;  and  that  in  the  last  day  a  part  of  God's 
elect  "shall  come  from  the  east  and  from  the  west,  and 
from  the  north  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in 
the  kingdom  of  God  "  (Luke  13  :  29).  These  are  all  re- 
generated in  this  life.  And  since  regeneration  in  the  in- 
stance of  the  adult  immediately  produces  faith  and  re- 
pentance, a  regenerate  heathen  is  both  a  believer  and  a 
penitent.  He  feels  sorrow  for  sin,  and  the  need  of  mercy. 
This  felt  need  of  mercy  and  desire  for  it  is  potentially 
and  virtually  faith  in  the  Redeemer.  For  although  the 
Redeemer  has  not  been  presented  to  him  historically  and 
personally  as  the  object  of  faith,  yet  the  Divine  Spirit  by 
the  new  birth  has  wrought  in  him  the  sincere  and  longing 
disposition  to  believe  in  him.  With  the  penitent  and 
believing  man  in  the  Gospel,  he  says,  "  Who  is  he,  Lord, 
that  I  might  believe  on  him  1 "  (John  9  :  36).  Such  a  man 
is  "  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit," 
and  belongs  to  that  class  of  "elect  persons  who  are  in- 
capable of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
word  "  (Conf.  x.  3). 

4.  In  the  fourth  place,  in  addition  to  all  this  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  past  and  present  in  applying  in 
these  three  ways  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus, 


PIKE   AND    MIXED  135 

there  is  that  mightiest  and  most  wonderful  manifestation 
of  his  power  which  is  still  in  reserve  for  the  future  of 
Christendom.  The  Scriptures  promise  an  outpouring  in 
the  "last  days,"  that  will  far  exceed  in  sweeping  and  irre- 
sistible energy  anything  in  the  past  history  of  the  Church. 
"  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  says  God 
(Joel  2  :  28).  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
that  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established 
in  the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above 
the  hills,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it "  (Isa.  2:2; 
Micah  4:1).  A  far  more  profound  and  all-reaching  in- 
terest in  the  concerns  of  the  soul  and  its  eternal  destiny 
than  has  ever  been  witnessed  on  earth,  will  mark  the  mil- 
lennium. The  then  near  and  impending  advent  of  the 
Son  of  man,  "when  he  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all 
the  holy  angels  with  him,  and  before  him  shall  be  gath- 
ered all  nations"  (Matt.  25:31,  32),  will  weigh  heavily 
upon  mankind.  The  end  of  the  world  and  the  approach- 
ing judgment  will  be  facts  of  infinite  meaning.  This  hu- 
man life,  now  so  frivolous,  will  become  serious  and  awful. 

"  The  clouds  that  gather  round  the  setting  sun 
Do  take  a  sober  coloring;  from  the  eye 
That  doth  keep  watch  o'er  man's  mortality." 

Vast  masses  of  sinful  men  will  be  bowed  down  in  poig- 
nant conviction,  and  nations  will  be  born  in  a  day.  The 
Redeemer,  "  travelling  in  the  greatness  of  his  strength, " 
will  take  unto  him  his  mighty  power,  and  turn  the  human 
heart  as  the  rivers  of  water.  Such  is  the  promise  and  the 
prophecy  of  Almighty  God. 

Now  this  is  a  great  salvation.  "  Where  sin  abounded, 
grace  has  superabounded  "  (Rom.  5  :  20).  The  immense 
majority  of  the  race  that  fell  in  Adam  will  be  saved  in 
Christ,  "  by  the  washing  of  regeneration."     Though  some 


136  CALVINISM  : 

men  and  angels  will  freely  persist  in  depravity,  and  be  left 
in  their  persistence,  yet  this  minor  and  mournful  note  of 
discord  will  only  enhance  the  choral  harmony  of  the  uni- 
verse. The  wrath  of  man  shall  praise  God  (Ps.  76  :  10). 
The  duty  of  the  Church  is  to  preach  to  every  creature  the 
law  by  which  men  are  convicted  of  sin,  and  the  gospel  by 
which  it  is  pardoned  and  eradicated,  praying  unceasingly 
for  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  make  both  law 
and  gospel  effectual  to  salvation.  Instead  of  starting  a 
false  and  delusive  hope  for  the  future  redemption  of  a 
part  of  the  human  family,  by  daring  to  reconstruct  God's 
plan  of  redemption  and  extending  the  dispensation  of  his 
Spirit  into  the  next  life,  the  Church  should  strengthen  the 
old  and  true  hope  by  doing  with  its  might  what  its  hands 
find  to  do,  and  crying  with  the  evangelical  prophet, 
"  Awake,  awake,  put  on  strength,  O  arm  of  the  Lord  " 
(Isa.  51 :  9).1 

1  It  should  be  observed  that  the  "  larger  hope  "  that  the  Divine  Mercy 
may  save  a  part  of  the  unevangelized  millions  of  mankind  does  not  re- 
quire the  extension  of  the  work  of  redemption  beyond  this  life.  The 
"  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  can  accom- 
plish this  salvation  here  in  this  world,  before  the  spirit  leaves  the 
body  and  "  returns  to  God  who  gave  it,"  as  easily  as  it  can  in  the  mid- 
dle state.  Instead,  then,  of  hoping  that  there  may  be  a  second  period 
of  redemption,  for  which  there  is  no  more  Scripture  foundation  than 
for  a  second  incarnation,  let  the  hope  rather  be  that  the  merciful  Re- 
deemer, who  is  "  mighty  to  save,"  may  here,  and  in  this  "  day  of  salva- 
tion," save  a  part  of  the  heathen  world.  He  himself  asserts  his  own 
sovereignty  in  this  matter,  and  declares  that  some  whose  outward  cir- 
cumstances were  favorable  to  salvation  will  be  lost,  and  that  some  whose 
outward  circumstances  were  unfavorable  will  be  saved.  "  There  shall 
be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth,  when  ye  shall  see  Abraham,  and 
Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  all  the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  you 
yourselves  cast  out.  And  they  shall  come  from  the  east,  and  from  the 
west,  and  from  the  north,  and  from  the  south,  and  shall  sit  down  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  And  behold  there  are  last  which  shall  be  first, 
and  there  are  first  which  shall  be  last "  (Luke  13  :  28-30). 


PUKE   AND   MIXED  137 


XIII. 

THE    WESTMINSTER    AFFIRMATION    OF    THE    ORIGINAL    IN- 
ERRANCY OF  THE  SCRIPTURES 

Those  who  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  auto- 
graphs of  Scripture,  and  are  endeavoring  to  introduce  this 
view  into  Biblical  Criticism,  claim  the  support  of  the 
Westminster  Standards.  We  propose  to  show  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  teaches  that  the  Scriptures  in 
their  first  form,  as  they  came  from  the  prophets  and 
apostles,  were  free  from  error  in  all  their  parts,  secondary 
as  well  as  primary. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  the  Confession  (i.  2,  8)  declares  that 
"  the  Word  of  God  as  written  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  was 
immediately  inspired  by  God."  This  relates  to  the  auto- 
frapks  of  the  "  holy  men  of  God  "  while  under  the  Divine 
afflatus  or  inbreathing.  2  Pet.  1  :  21.  And  it  relates  to 
them  in  their  entirety,  because  no  exceptions  are  made. 
The  inspiration  was  plenary,  not  partial.  It  extended  not 
to  one  subject  only,  but  to  all  the  subjects  of  which  the 
sacred  writers  treat,  and  on  which  they  profess  to  teach 
the  truth.  The  history,  chronology,  topography,  and 
physics,  as  well  as  the  theology  and  ethics,  that  were  com- 
posed under  the  "immediate  inspiration"  of  God,  must 
from  the  nature  of  the  case  have  been  free  from  er- 
ror. In  the  original  Bible  as  it  came  from  the  inspired 
prophets  and  apostles,  there  was  no  mythical  and  fabu- 
lous history,  no  exaggerated  and  fictitious  chronology  like 
that  of  Egypt,  India,  and  some  modern  physicists,  the 


138  CALVINISM  : 

topography  was  strikingly  accurate  as  modern  explorations 
show,  and  the  physics,  especially  in  the  account  of  the 
creative  days,  contained  none  of  the  pantheism  and  poly- 
theism of  the  ancient  cosmogonies,  and  is  corroborated 
by  modern  science  so  far  as  this  is  well  established.  In 
thus  declaring  that  the  Bible  as  a  complete  whole  was 
written  in  Hebrew  and  Greek  by  persons  who  were  un- 
der the  "immediate  inspiration"  of  God,  the  Confession 
teaches  that  in  this  first  original  form  it  was  inerrant. 
There  is  no  escaping  this  conclusion,  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  immediate  inspiration  may  be  more  or  less 
erroneous  and  misleading. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  the  Confession  (i.  8)  declares 
that  "  the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  Greek,  being  immediately  inspired  by  God,  is  by 
liis  singular  care  and  providence  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  and 
is  therefore  authentical  [i.e.  authoritative],  so  that  in  all 
controversies  of  religion  the  church  is  finally  to  appeal  to 
them."  This  relates  to  the  copies  of  the  original  auto- 
graphs. The  Confession  does  not  say  that  these  were 
made  under  the  "immediate  inspiration  "  of  God  as  the 
autographs  were,  but  under  the  "  singular  care  and  provi- 
dence "  of  God.  The  copies  consequently  are  liable  to 
the  introduction  of  errors,  because  the  providential  care 
of  God,  even  though  it  be  "  singular  "  and  remarkable, 
is  not  the  same  thing  as  the  "  immediate  inspiration " 
of  God.  While,  therefore,  absolute  inerrancy  is  attribu- 
ted by  the  Confession  to  the  original  manuscript,  it  is 
not  to  the  copies  of  them.  The  immediate  inspiration 
of  a  prophet  or  apostle,  extending  as  the  Confession  de- 
clares to  the  "Word  as  written,  excludes  all  error  from 
the  written  production,  but  the  providential  superin- 
tendence of  a  copyist  does  not.  God  has  permitted  some 
things  in  the  providential  transmission  and  preservation 


PURE   AND    MIXED  139 

of  the  several  books  of  Scripture,  which  he  did  not  per- 
mit in  the  direct  inspiration  of  them.  He  has  allowed 
glosses  on  the  margin  to  get  into  the  text,  numerals 
represented  by  letters  of  the  alphabet  to  be  altered  by 
carelessness,  a  frequent  cause  of  discrepancies  in  the  Old 
Testament,  clauses  to  be  omitted  from  homoeoteleuton,  or 
added  by  paraphrase  or  from  ancient  liturgies,  and 
other  variations  of  this  kind.  But  he  did  not  allow  any  of 
these  variations  and  errors  to  get  into  the  original  writing, 
as  it  came  from  the  inspired  penman  who  composed  it. 
And  there  is  no  reason,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  for  as- 
serting that  he  did.  Does  it  follow  that  because  the  exist- 
ing copies  of  1  Sam.  6  :  19  contain  the  statement  that 
50,070  men  were  slain  for  looking  into  the  ark,  that  the 
autograph  also  did?  Because  the  copies  of  the  autographs 
of  the  New  Testament  contain  30,000  variations  according 
to  Mill,  and  150,000  according  to  Scrivener,  must  we  as- 
sume that  the  autographs  themselves  had  all  these,  or 
any  of  them  ? 

But  while  the  Confession  ascribes  providential  superin- 
tendence, not  immediate  inspiration,  to  the  copyist,  it 
claims  for  all  copies  of  the  autographs  a  relative  in  dis- 
tinction from  an  absolute  inerrancy.  The  "singular  care 
and  providence  of  God  keeps  them  pure  in  all  ages  so  that 
they  are  authentical."  that  is,  authoritative,  and  "  in  all 
controversies  of  religion,  the  church  is  finally  to  appeal 
to  them."  Con.  i.  8.  The  minor  and  unimportant  er- 
rors of  the  class  above  mentioned,  which  have  been  al- 
lowed by  Divine  providence  to  get  into  the  copies,  do  not 
make  any  radical  and  essential  alterations  in  the  auto- 
graphs. A  student  of  the  copy  to-day  will  obtain  from 
it  the  same  doctrine,  the  same  history,  the  same  chro- 
nology, the  same  topography,  and  the  same  physics,  that 
he  would  from  the  original  autograph  if  he  could  have 


140  CALVINISM  : 

access  to  it.  The  doctrines  of  the  trinity,  the  incarnation, 
the  apostasy,  and  the  redemption,  are  confessedly  un- 
affected by  any  of  these  variations  in  the  history  or  topog- 
raphy. And  the  Biblical  chronology  itself  is  not  es- 
sentially altered  by  the  numerical  errors  which  the  care- 
lessness of  the  copyist  has  introduced.  For  example,  the 
contradiction  between  2  Kings  8  :  26  and  2  Chron.  22  : 
2,  in  the  existing  manuscripts,  does  not  invalidate  the 
chronology  of  the  fifth  and  the  eleventh  chapters  of 
Genesis.  There  is  nothing  in  any  of  the  alleged  or  the 
actual  chronological  mistakes  in  any  of  the  copies  of  the 
Scriptures,  that  necessitates  the  rejection  of  the  Biblical 
chronology  which  brings  the  whole  of  human  history  be- 
fore the  Advent  within  a  period  of  four  or  six  thousand 
years,  according  as  the  Hebrew  or  the  Septnagint  text  is 
adopted.  And  this  remark  applies  also  to  the  versions  of 
Scriptnre  which  have  been  and  will  be  made  by  the 
Church.  These  convey  to  the  nations  of  mankind  the 
same  doctrine,  history,  chronology,  topography,  and 
physics  that  were  taught  by  the  prophets  and  apostles,  al- 
though they  contain  some  errors  in  translation. 

The  question  is  asked  in  the  way  of  objection  to  this 
decimation  of  the  Confession,  Why  did  not  God  inspire 
the  copyists  as  well  as  the  original  authors  ?  Why  did  he 
begin  with  absolute  inerrancy,  and  end  with  relative  in- 
errancy ?  For  the  same  reason  that,  generally,  he  begins 
with  the  supernatural  and  ends  with  the  natural.  For 
illustration,  the  first  founding  of  his  church,  in  both  the 
Old  and  New  dispensations,  was  marked  by  miracles;  but 
the  development  of  it  is  marked  only  by  his  operations  in 
nature,  providence,  and  grace.  The  miracle  was  needed 
in  order  to  begin  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  sinful  world, 
but  is  not  needed  in  order  to  its  continuance  and  progress. 
And  the  same  is  true  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  his 


PURE   AND   MIXED  141 

written  Word.  This  must  "begin  in  a  miracle.  The  truths 
and  facts  of  revealed  religion,  as  distinguished  from  nat- 
ural, must  be  supernaturally  communicated  to  a  few  par- 
ticular persons  especially  chosen  for  this  purpose.  Inspi- 
ration comes  under  the  category  of  the  miracle.  It  is 
as  miraculous  as  raising  the  dead.  To  expect,  therefore, 
that  God  would  continue  inspiration  to  copyists  after  hav- 
ing given  it  to  prophets  and  apostles,  would  be  like  expect- 
ing that  because  in  the  first  century  he  empowered  men 
to  raise  the  dead,  he  would  continue  to  do  so  in  all  cen- 
turies. If  this  had  been  necessary,  if  God  could  not  have 
extended  and  perpetuated  his  church  without  the  contin- 
uance of  miracles,  doubtless  he  would  have  wrought  mir- 
acles perpetually  ;  for  we  can  not  suppose  that  Omnipo- 
tence would  suffer  itself  to  be  defeated  in  any  undertak- 
ing. But  whatever  can  be  accomplished  by  his  ordinary 
methods  in  nature,  providence,  and  grace,  God  so  accom- 
plishes. 

Now,  this  applies  to  divine  revelation.  The  Scriptures 
could  not  have  been  originated  and  written  down  in  the 
vernacular  of  the  prophets  and  apostles  without  an  in- 
errant  and  infallible  inspiration,  and  as  thus  originated 
and  written  they  were  perfect,  containing  no  error.  God 
the  Holy  Spirit  inspires  no  error,  great  or  small.  This 
is  miracle.  But  these  Scriptures  can  be  copied  into  thou- 
sands of  manuscripts,  so  that  these  shall  substantially 
reproduce  the  autographs  in  doctrine,  history,  physics, 
chronology,  geography  ;  in  short,  in  everything  that  goes 
to  make  up  the  Scriptures.  This  latter  process  is  not 
supernatural  and  preclusive  of  all  error,  but  providential 
and  natural  and  allowing  of  some  error.  But  this  sub- 
stantial reproduction,  this  relative  "  purity  "  of  the  origi- 
nal text  as  copied,  is  sufficient  for  t ho  Divine  purposes  in 
carrying  forward  the  work  of  redemption  in  the  world. 


142  CALVINISM  : 

But  had  the  employment  of  this  method  of  special  provi- 
dence involved  the  radical  alteration  of  the  original  apo- 
graphs, so  as  to  introduce  essential  and  fatal  error  into 
them,  then  doubtless  it  would  not  have  been  employed, 
but  the  copyists  as  well  as  the  prophets  and  apostles 
would  have  been  supernaturally  "  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  their  copies  would  have  been  exact  facsimiles 
of  the  autographs. 

One  or  the  other  view  of  the  Scriptures  must  be 
adopted ;  either  that  they  were  originally  inerrant  and 
infallible,  or  that  they  were  originally  errant  and  fallible. 
The  first  view  is  that  of  the  church  in  all  ages :  the  last 
is  that  of  the  rationalist  in  all  ages.  He  who  adopts  the 
first  view,  will  naturally  bend  all  his  efforts  to  eliminate  the 
errors  of  copyists  and  harmonize  discrepancies,  and  there- 
by bring  the  existing  manuscripts  nearer  to  the  original 
autographs.  By  this  process,  the  errors  and  discrepancies 
gradually  diminish,  and  belief  in  the  infallibility  of  Script- 
ure is  strengthened.  He  who  adopts  the  second  view, 
will  naturally  bend  all  his  efforts  to  perpetuate  the  mis- 
takes of  scribes,  and  exaggerate  and  establish  discrepancies. 
By  this  process,  the  errors  and  discrepancies  gradually  in- 
crease, and  disbelief  in  the  infallibility  of  Scripture  is 
strengthened.  That  the  theory  of  the  original  errancy 
and  fallibility  of  Scripture  as  it  came  from  the  prophets 
and  apostles  should  be  maintained  and  defended  by  the 
rationalistic  critic,  is  comprehensible — his  hostility  to  the 
supernatural  explains  it — but  that  it  should  be  maintained 
and  defended  by  professedly  evangelical  critics,  is  inex- 
plicable, except  on  the  supposition  that  they  do  not  per- 
ceive the  logical  result  of  the  theoiy,  and  its  exceedingly 
destructive  influence  upon  the  belief  of  mankind  in  Divine 
Revelation. 

Nearly  forty  years  ago,  the  author,  in  criticising  the 


PURE   AND    MIXED  143 

theory  strongly  and  eloquently  presented  by  Coleridge  in 
his  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit,  that  the  secondary 
sections  of  Scripture  contain  more  or  less  of  error,  while 
the  primary  section  relating  to  doctrine  is  inerrant,  made 
the  following  objections  to  it,  which  he  has  seen  no  reason 
to  modify.  "  We  are  aware  that  Coleridge  believed  that 
the  Scriptures  are  infallible  on  all  fundamental  subjects, 
and  that  those  doctrines  which  in  common  with  the  Chris- 
tian Church  he  regarded  as  vital  to  human  salvation, 
are  all  infallibly  revealed  in  them.  This  separates  him 
heaven-wide  from  a  mere  rationalist,  and  places  him  in 
the  same  general  class  with  the  evangelical  school  of  theo- 
logians in  Germany,  in  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion. Still,  we  regard  it  as  an  error  in  him  and  in  them, 
that  the  canon  is  not  contemplated  as  a  complete  whole, 
having  a  common  origin  in  the  Divine  Mind,  in  such 
sense  that  as  a  body  of  information  it  is  infallibly  correct 
on  all  the  subjects  upon  which  it  purports  to  teach  truth. 
There  must  be  truth,  in  distinction  from  error,  upon  even 
the  most  unimportant  particulars  of  history,  chronology, 
topography,  and  physics  constituting  a  part  of  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  Bible,  and  it  is  altogether  the  most  rational 
to  assume  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Biblical  statements 
themselves  if  they  are  inspired  of  God.  These  secondary 
subjects  are  an  important,  and  sometimes  a  vital  part  of 
the  total  Word  of  God.  The  biographic  memoirs  of  the 
Redeemer  are  an  instance.  If  these  are  not  inerrant  as 
history  and  chronology,  then  the  Christian  religion  itself 
disappears ;  for  the  Personage  in  whom  it  centres  becomes 
mythical,  instead  of  historic.  Hence  in  the  contest  be- 
tween rationalism  and  supernaturalism,  the  narratives  in 
the  four  Gospels  have  been  the  hottest  part  of  the  battle- 
field. Consider  again  the  long  and  detailed  narratives  of 
the  exodus  of  the  Israelites,  and  their  wanderings  for 


144  CALVINISM  : 

forty  years.  If  these  were  not  the  inspired  product  of 
their  leader  and  law-giver,  but  the  compilation  and  inven- 
tion of  unknown  persons  living  a  thousand  years  after 
Moses,  and  in  an  environment  wholly  different  from  that 
of  Egypt  and  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  this  fictitious 
secondary  matter  will  drag  the  primary  along  with  it. 
Mankind  will  not  believe  that  the  theology  and  ethics  of 
the  decalogue,  the  sacrifices,  types,  and  symbols  of  the 
Levitical  institute,  and  the  religion  of  the  theocracy,  came 
supernaturally  from  God,  if  they  are  imbedded  in  a 
mythical  history  and  chronology  like  that  of  Egypt  and 
India.  The  secondary  sections  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
are  so  integrated  into  the  solid  doctrinal  substance  of  the 
Bible,  that  they  cannot  be  taken  out  of  it  any  more  than 
the  veins  can  be  from  the  solid  marble.  Why  then  is  it 
not  probable  that  they  had  the  same  common  origin  with 
the  doctrines  and  fundamental  truths  themselves  which 
are  encrusted  and  crystallized  in  them — in  other  words, 
that  the  Divine  Spirit,  whether  as  positively  revealing,  or 
as  inspiring  and  superintending,  is  the  ultimate  Author 
of  the  whole  ?  There  are  but  two  objections  to  this  posi- 
tion. The  first  is,  that  the  inspired  writers  become  there- 
by mere  amanuenses  and  automata.  This  objection  has 
no  force  for  one  who  believes  that  the  Divine  can,  and 
does  dwell  and  work  in  the  human  in  the  most  real  and 
absolute  manner,  without  in  the  least  mutilating  or  sup- 
pressing the  human,  and  ought  not  to  be  urged  by  one 
who  believes  in  the  actuation  of  the  regenerate  soul  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  As  in  this  instance  the  human  cannot 
be  separated  from  the  Divine,  in  the  individual  conscious- 
ness, and  all  '  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit'  seem  to  be  the  very 
spontaneity  of  the  human  soul  itself,  so  in  the  origina- 
tion of  the  entire  body  of  Holy  Writ,  while  all,  even 
the  minutest  parts,  have  the  flexibility,  naturalness,  and 


PURE   AND   MIXED  145 

freshness  of  purely  human  products,  there  is  yet  in  and 
through   them  all   the   unerring-  agency  of   the  Supreme 
Mind.     In  other  words,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  organizing 
power  and  principle  in  the  outstanding  body  of  knowledge 
and  information  which  is  called  the  Bible,  and,  working 
like  every  organizing  power  thoroughly  and  completely  $ 
produces  a  whole  that  is  characterized  by  His  own  char- 
acteristic perfection  of  knowledge,  even  as  the  principle 
of:  life  in  the  natural  world   diffuses  itself,  and   produces 
all  the  characteristic  marks  of  life,  out  to  the  rim  of  the 
tiniest  leaf.     The  second  objection,  and  a  fatal  one  if  it 
can  be  maintained,  is,  that  there  are  actual  errors  in  the 
Scriptures  on    points    respecting   which    they   profess    to 
teach  the  truth.     Let  this  be  proved  if  it  can  be;  but  un- 
til it  has  been  demonstrated  incontrovertibly,  the  Chris- 
tian Church  is  consistent  in  asserting  the  infallibility  of 
the  written  Word  in  all  its  elements  and  parts.     We  say 
this  with  confidence,  because  out  of  the  large  number  of 
alleged  errors  and  contradictions    that  have   been   urged 
against  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  by  scep- 
tics  of    all  grades  from   Celsus    and    Porphyry  down'  to 
Spinoza   and    Strauss,   none   are    established  as   such    on 
grounds  that  make  it  absurd  for  the  defender  of  the  doc- 
trine  to  deny  the  allegation,  and  attempt  an  explanation 
and  reconciliation  of  the  difficulty.     There  are  many  per- 
plexities remaining,  we  grant,  but  while  there  is  not  an 
instance   in  which   the   unprejudiced   and   truly  scientific 
study  of  the  Bible  has  resulted  in  demonstrating  beyond 
dispute  that   an    inspired  prophet  or   apostle   has  taught 
error  of  any  kind,  there  are  many  instances  in  which  it 
has  resulted  in  favor  of  plenary  inspiration.     Xo  one  ac- 
quainted  with    the   results  of    the    severe    and    sceptical 
criticism   to  which  the  canon  has  been  subjected  by  the 
English  deists  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  the  Grcrman 
10 


146  CALVINISM  : 

rationalists  of  the  nineteenth,  will  deny  that  the  number 
of  apparent  contradictions  and  errors  is  smaller  now  than 
at  the  beginning  of  the  controversy,  and  that  the  Divine 
origin  and  authority  of  the  Old  and  ±\e\v  Testaments  are 
resting  on  broader,  deeper,  and  firmer  foundations  than 
ever."     Shedd  :  Literary  Essays,  337-340. 

Those  who  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  auto- 
graphs of  the  Scriptures  are  also  chargeable  with  another 
misunderstanding  of  the  Confession.  They  confound  "  the 
testimony  of  any  man  or  church  "  spoken  of  in  Con.  i.  4, 
with  "the  testimony  of  the  church"  spoken  of  in  Con.  i. 
5.  In  endeavoring,  contrary  to  all  the  Christian  apolo- 
getics of  the  past,  to  sever  entirely  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures  from  their  authorship  and  authenticity,  and  to 
make  belief  in  them  depend  solely  upon  the  inward  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit,  thereby  abolishing  historical  faith  and 
retaining  only  saving  faith,  they  argue  that  the  exclu- 
sion of  "  the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church"  spoken  of 
in  Con.  i.  4,  excludes  "the  testimony  of  the  church" 
spoken  of  in  Con.  i.  5,  and  cite  the  former  to  show  that 
the  external  evidence  for  the  authenticity  of  Scripture 
which  comes  from  the  tradition  of  the  Jewish  and  early 
Christian  churches  is  not  needed  in  order  to  prove  its 
inspiration,  or  to  strengthen  confidence  in  it.  In  so  doing 
the}7  confound  authority  with  authenticity,  and  overlook 
the  two  different  uses  of  the  term  "  testimony  "  in  the 
Confession.  In  Con.  i.  4,  the  authority  of  the  Scripture  is 
spoken  of,  and  the  "  testimony  "  meant  is  testimony  to 
the  truth.  In  Con.  i.  5,  the  authenticity  of  Scripture  is 
spoken  of,  and  the  "  testimony  "  meant  is  testimony  to 
the  authorship  and  genuineness  of  a  writing.  An  exami- 
nation of  the  two  sections  will  show  this. 

Con.  i.  4  declares  that  "  the  authority  of  Scripture  de- 
pendeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or  church, 


PURE   AND   MIXED  147 

but  wholly  upon  God,  who  is  the  author  of  it."  "  Testi- 
mony," here,  is  used  in  the  sense  of  teaching,  declaring 
and  communicating  truth.  The  proof  text  cited  from  1 
John  5 :  9  evinces  this :  "  If  we  receive  the  witness  of 
men,  the  witness  -of  God  is  greater."  To  which  may  be 
added,  with  many  another  passage,  John  5  :  32,  34 :  "I 
receive  not  testimony  from  men  ;  there  is  another  that 
beareth  witness  of  me,  and  I  know  that  the  witness  which 
he  witnesseth  of  me  is  true."  Truth  which  God  testifies 
to  and  so  is  the  author  of,  has  infallible  authority  ;  but 
truth  which"  any  manor  church  "  testifies  to  and  so  is  the 
author  of,  is  fallible. 

Con.  i.  5  declares  that  "  we  may  be  induced  by  the 
testimony  of  the  church  to  a  high  and  reverent  esteem  for 
the  Holy  Scriptures."  This  relates  to  the  authenticity  of 
the  Bible;  namely,  to  the  fact  of  its  being  the  genuine 
product  of  those  inspired  prophets  and  apostles  through 
whom  God  '■  testified"  in  the  sense  of  Con.  i.  4,  and  made 
his  revelation  of  truth,  in  distinction  from  being  the  forged 
product  of  unknown  men  outside  of  the  circle  of  prophets 
and  apostles,  writing  centuries  later.  The  "  testimony  " 
spoken  of  in  this  section  is  not  the  teaching,  declaring,  and 
communicating  of  divine  truth,  but  merely  bearing  wit- 
ness that  such  and  such  persons  wrote  such  and  such  parts 
of  Scripture.  The  Jewish  and  early  Christian  churches, 
in  rendering  this  important  service,  whereby  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  sacred  writings  is  established  by  the  same  kind 
of  testimony  by  which  that  of  secular  writings  is  proved, 
did  not  claim  to  be  the  authors  of  the  Bible,  or  that  it  got 
its  authority  from  them,  but  only  to  know  that  certain 
men  who  gave  evidence  by  visible  miraculous  signs  of  be- 
ing called  and  inspired  of  God  wrote  certain  books  of 
Scripture.  Such  external  testimony  as  this  to  the  genuine- 
ness of  Scripture,  supported  by  the  infinitely  higher  testi- 


148  CALVINISM: 

mony  of  Christ  to  the  same  effect  in  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament,  is  as  necessary  in  order  to  faith  in  it  as  a 
divine  book  as  is  the  external  testimony  of  the  early 
Christian  church  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  wrought 
miracles,  in  order  to  believe  in  miracles.'  Take  away  from 
Christendom  the  external  evidence  which  the  "  eye-wit- 
nesses "  (2  Pet.  1 :  16)  and  contemporaries  of  our  Lord 
and  his  apostles  gave  to  miracles,  and  belief  in  miracles 
would  soon  yield  to  sceptical  attacks.  The  internal  evi- 
dence alone  would  not  save  it.  Take  away  from  Christen- 
dom the  testimony  which  contemporaries  have  given  that 
the  four  Gospels  were  the  productions  of  the  four  Evan- 
gelists, and  belief  in  their  infallible  inspiration  would  soon 
die  out.  The  internal  evidence  alone  would  not  be  suf- 
ficient to  keep  the  faith  of  the  church  firm,  after  the 
invalidation  of  their  genuineness  and  canonicity.  We 
already  see  the  mischievous  effect  of  even  the  defeated 
attempt  to  destroy  the  force  of  the  early  ecclesiastical 
testimony  and  catholic  tradition  respecting  the  authorship 
of  the  Gospels,  in  lessening  confidence  in  them  as  inspired 
narratives. 

And  the  reason  is,  that  inspiration  from  the  nature  of 
the  case  belongs  only  to  a  very  small  circle,  and  not  to 
mankind  generally,  nor  to  a  nation  generally.  A  book,  in 
order  to  be  inspired,  must  originate  within  this  very 
small  circle.  Hence  the  question  of  authorship  is  insepa- 
rable from  that  of  inspiration.  Whoever  could  prove  in- 
disputably that  Matthew's  gospel  was  not  written  by  or 
under  the  superintendence  of  one  of  "those  men  which 
companied  with  the  Lord  Jesus  all  the  time  that  he  went 
in  and  out  "  on  earth  (Acts  1 :  21),  and  whom  he  set  apart 
and  endowed  with  both  inspiration  and  miraculous  powers, 
in  order  to  found  his  church  and  prepare  an  authorita- 
tive account  of  his  life  and  teachings  for  Christendom  in 


PURE   AND   MIXED  149 

all  time — whoever  could  indisputably  prove  that  it  was 
written  by  some  unknown  person  in  the  second  century 
who  never  saw  Christ  on  earth  and  had  no  personal  con- 
nection with  him  of  any  kind,  would  prove  that  it  was  a 
forgery  and  destroy  human  confidence  in  it.  And  this 
confidence  would  not  be  restored  by  merely  saying,  "  The 
first  Gospel  was  not  written  by  Matthew,  but  whoever  it 
was  that  wrote  it  he  was  inspired/'  For  this  makes  the 
inspiration  depend  upon  the  testimony  of  the  modern  in- 
dividual who  says  so,  instead  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Primitive  church.  The  only  sponsor  for  the  inspiration 
of  an  "unknown  man"  is  the  unknown  man  that  asserts 
such  an  inspiration. 

Both  the  external  and  internal  evidences  for  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Scriptures  are  necessary  ;  and  so  are  both 
historical  and  saving  faith.  A  man  who  is  destitute  of 
the  former  is  never  the  subject  of  the  latter ;  the  former 
is  a  preparative  to  the  latter.  Sceptics,  remaining  such, 
are  never  converted.  Consequently  God  provides  the  ex- 
ternal evidence  which  produces  historical  faith,  as  well  as 
the  inward  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  produces 
saving  faith.  There  is  no  need  of  undervaluing  the  very 
great  strength  of  the  internal  evidence  while  insisting 
upon  the  full  value  of  the  external.  Inspiration  is  a 
supernatural  fact,  like  miracles  ;  and,  as  we  cannot  rely 
wholly  upon  the  internal  evidence  for  a  miracle,  upon  its 
intrinsic  nature  and  probability,  but  must  bring  in  the  ex- 
ternal evidence,  namely,  the  actual  seeing  of  it  by  an  eye- 
witness, so  in  the  case  of  inspiration,  in  addition  to  the 
nature  of  the  truths  taught  and  the  probability  that  a 
benevolent  and  paternal  Being  would  make  some  commu- 
nications to  his  creatures  respecting  their  origin  and  eter- 
nal destiny,  we  must  add  that  which  comes  from  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  lived  contemporaneously  with  prophets 


150  CALVINISM 


and  apostles  respecting  their  right  to  be  regarded  as  the 
authors  of  the  writings  attributed  to  them,  and  the  super- 
natural evidences  which  they  gave  that  they  were  under 
a  divine  afflatus,  and  were  the  "holy  men  of  God,  who 
spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost." 


PUKE   AND    MIXED  151 


XIV. 

CALVINISM   AND  THE  BIBLE 

The  question,  What  is  the  system  of  doctrine  contained 
in  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  what  is  essential  to 
its  integrity  %  is  more  important  than  ever,  now  that  the 
Presbyteries  have  voted  in  favor  of  revision,  and  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  has  instructed  its  committee  "  not  to  pro- 
pose any  alterations  or  amendments  that  will  in  any  way 
impair  the  integrity  of  the  .Reformed  or  Calvinistic  sys- 
tem of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith."  The 
vote  of  the  Church  in  answer  to  the  overture  of  the  fifteen 
Presbyteries  shows  that  sixty-eight  Presbyteries  desire  no 
revision  at  all  of  their  Standards,  and  that  ninety-two  de- 
sire no  revision  that  would  alter  the  doctrinal  system  con- 
tained in  them.  This  vote  evinces  that  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  wish  to  be 
known  as  a  Calvinistic  denomination,  in  distinction  from 
a  Broad  Church,  tolerating  all  varieties  of  "evangelical" 
belief;  and  the  general  tenor  of  the  discussion  in  the  late 
Assembly  was  strongly  against  the  dis-Calvinizing  of  the 
Confession. 

Some  advocates  of  revision  object  to  this  decision  of  the 
Assembly  to  make  Calvinism  a  test  of  revision,  and  de- 
mand that  Scripture  be  the  test.  Of  course  Scripture  is 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith.  But  this  particular  way 
of  appealing  to  Scripture  is  specious  and  fallacious.  In 
the  first  place,  it  assumes  that  Calvinism  is  not  Scriptural, 
an  assumption  which  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  never 


152  CALVINISM  : 

granted.  This  Church  does  not  accept  the  alternative — 
the  Bible  or  Calvinism — presented  in  this  appeal.  Its 
watchword  is,  The  Bible  and  Calvinism.  Secondly,  this 
kind  of  appeal  to  Scripture  is  only  an  appeal  to  Scripture 
as  the  reviser  understands  it.  "  Scripture  "  properly  means 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  ;  that  is,  the  contents  of 
Scripture  as  reached  lyy  human  investigation  and  exegesis. 
Creeds,  like  commentaries,  are  Scripture  studied  and  ex- 
plained, and  not  the  mere  abstract  and  unexplained  book 
as  it  lies  on  the  counter  of  the  Bible  House.  The  infalli- 
ble Word  of  God  is  expounded  by  the  fallible  mind  of 
man,  and  hence  the  variety  of  expositions  embodied  in  the 
denominational  creeds.  But  every  interpreter  claims  to 
have  understood  the  Scriptures  correctly,  and,  conse- 
quently, claims  that  his  creed  is  Scriptural,  and  if  so,  that 
it  is  the  infallible  truth  of  God.  The  Arminian  appeals 
to  the  Articles  of  Wesley  as  the  rule  of  faith,  because  he 
believes  them  to  be  the  true  explanation  of  the  inspired 
Bible.  For  him  they  are  the  Bible  in  a  nutshell.  The 
Calvinist  appeals  to  the  creeds  of  Heidelberg,  Dort,  and 
Westminster  as  the  rule  of  faith,  because  he  regards  them 
as  the  accurate  exegesis  of  the  revealed  Word  of  God. 
By  the  "Bible"  these  parties,  as  well  as  all  others  who 
appeal  to  the  Bible,  mean  their  understanding  of  the 
Bible.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  that  abstract  Scripture 
to  which  the  revisionist  of  whom  we  are  speaking  appeals  ; 
that  is,  Scripture  apart  from  any  and  all  interpretation  of 
it.  When,  therefore,  the  advocate  of  revision  demands 
that  the  Westminster  Confession  be  "conformed  to  Script- 
ure," he  means  conformation  to  Scripture  as  he  and  those 
like  him  read  and  explain  it.  It  is  impossible  to  make 
abstract  Scripture  the  rule  of  faith  for  either  an  individ- 
ual or  a  denomination.  ]STo  Christian  body  has  ever  sub- 
scribed to  the  Bible  merely  as  a  printed  book.     A  person 


PURE   AND    MIXED  153 

who  should  write  his  name  on  the  blank  leaf  of  the  Bible 
and  say  that  his  doctrinal  belief  was  between  the  covers, 
would  convey  no  definite  information  as  to  his  creed.  He 
might  be  a  Socinian,  or  a  Calvinist,  or  anywhere  between 
these  extremes.  The  only  question,  consequently,  before 
the  Presbyterian  Church  is,  Whether  the  Confession  shall 
be  kept  conformed  to  Scripture  as  the  Calvinist  under- 
stands it,  or  as  the  non-Calvinist  or  an  ti -Calvinist  under- 
stands it ;  whether  it  shall  continue  to  present  that  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  which  goes  under  the  names  of 
Augustine  and  Calvin,  of  Heidelberg,  Dort,  and  West- 
minster, or  that  which  goes  under  some  other  name,  say 
that  of  "  modern  exegesis,"  or  of  "  progressive  theology." 
The  Presbyterian  Church  has  decided  in  favor  of  the  first 
proposition. 

The  question,  What  is  Calvinism  ?  is  mainly  one  of 
reasoning  and  discrimination.  It  relates  to  a  matter  of 
fact.  This  question  will  answer  itself  in  the  discussion 
now  going  on  ;  for  this  theological  system  possesses  as 
distinctive  features  as  the  Copernican  astronomy,  and  it 
will  be  as  impossible  to  confuse  and  unsettle  the  religious 
world  respecting  the  former,  as  it  would  be  to  confuse  and 
unsettle  the  scientific  world  respecting  the  latter.  The 
essential  parts  of  this  system  are  the  well-known  five 
points  of  Calvinism,  namely,  total  depravity  in  distinction 
from  partial;  unconditional  election  in  distinction  from 
conditional  ;  irresistible  regenerating  grace  in  distinction 
from  resistible  ;  limited  redemption  (not  atonement)  in 
distinction  from  universal ;  the  certain  perseverance  of  the 
regenerate  in  distinction  from  their  possible  apostasy.  No 
one  of  these  points  can  be  rejected  without  impairing  the 
integrity  of  Calvinism,  any  more  than  one  of  the  points  of 
the  mariners'  compass  can  be  omitted  and  the  scheme  be 
complete ;  any  more  than  one  of  the  contrary  live  points 


154  CALVINISM  : 

of  Anninianism  can  be  deleted  and  the  theory  remain  un- 
altered. 

The  "Institutes"  of  Calvin,  after  all  the  development 
of  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic  type  of  doctrine  by  later 
theologians,  still  remains  one  of  the  best  statements  of  this 
powerful  system.  The  keen  and  aquiline  eye  of  the  most 
scientific  theologian  of  the  Reformation  saw  the  funda- 
mental truths  of  revelation  with  an  accuracy  and  precision 
that  required  no  correction  on  his  part.  The  great  work 
of  his  early  manhood  remained  essentially  unchanged  by 
him  to  the  end  of  his  career,  and  since  his  day  it  has  laid 
at  the  foundation  of  all  subsequent  theologizing  of  this 
class,  as  the  Prlncipia  of  Newton  has  under  all  the  suc- 
ceeding mathematics  of  Europe.  While,  however,  a  re- 
vision of  the  Westminster  Standards  that  shall  be  true  to 
their  structure  and  system  does  not  require  that  the 
peculiarities  of  individual  Calviuists,  even  of  Calvin  him- 
self, or  of  Calvinistic  schools  should  be  followed,  it  does 
require  that  all  of  those  constituent  and  formative  tenets 
by  which  Augustinianism  differs  from  Semi-Pelagianism, 
and  Calvinism  from  Anninianism,  shall  be  reaffirmed  and 
maintained.  The  revision  must  be  conformed  to  the  his- 
torical Calvinism  as  stated  in  the  principal  Reformed  or 
Calvinistic  creeds,  and  not  to  Calvinism  as  constructed  by 
any  particular  theologian,  however  able  or  popular  in  his 
own  day  and  denomination. 

The  Christian  religion  contains  certain  truths  that  are 
so  indisputably  taught  in  the  Christian  Scriptures,  that 
their  acceptance  is  necessary  in  order  to  be  a  Christian  in 
the  sense  in  which  the  first  disciples  were  so  called  at  An- 
tioch.  They  are  the  doctrines  of  the  trinity  and  incarna- 
tion, of  apostasy  and  redemption,  as  they  are  generally  and 
largely  enunciated  in  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  creeds. 
Respecting  these,   there  has  been  little  disagreement  in 


PUKE    AND    MIXED  ]55 

ancient,  mediaeval,  and  modern  Christendom.  The  Chris- 
tian religion  also  contains  certain  other  truths  which,  both 
in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  doctrinal  systems  constructed 
out  of  them,  are  implications  and  deductions  from  these 
cardinal  doctrines.  It  is  in  reference  to  this  class  of  more 
strict  and  precise  tenets,  that  evangelical  Christendom  has 
from  the  first  been  divided  into  two  great  divisions.  In 
respect  to  them,  the  ancient  theologian  was  either  Angus- 
tin  ian  or  Semi-Pelagian;  the  modern  theologian  is  either 
Calvinistic  or  Arminian.  The  difference  between  them 
relates  principally  to  the  more  exact  definition  of  original 
sin,  of  human  freedom  and  ability,  and  of  the  Divine  sov- 
ereignty and  decrees.  So  long  as  Christian  believers  see 
through  a  glass  darkly,  there  will  be  a  speculative  differ- 
ence between  them  on  these  abstruser  parts  of  revelation 
that  will  affect  more  or  less  the  style  of  the  religious  ex- 
perience, and  make  separate  religious  organizations  desir- 
able. This  difference  lias  for  fifteen  centuries  crystallized 
into  two  sharply-edged  types  of  theology,  and  there  are 
no  signs  that  one  will  outreason  and  conquer  the  other. 
Calvinism  and  Calvinistic  denominations  will  probably 
continue  to  exist  to  the  end  of  time;  and  so  will  Armin- 
ianism  and  Arminian  denominations.  In  the  future,  as  in 
the  past,  all  evangelical  believers  will  belong  either  to  one 
dogmatic  division  or  the  other.  It  is  better,  in  these  cir- 
cnmstances,  that  both  shall  live  and  work  side  by  side  in 
frank  and. respectful  recognition  of  each  other,  than  to  de- 
stroy the  self -consistence  of  each  by  an  attempt  to  combine 
both  in  a  single  system.  Only  these  two  general  schemes 
of  Christian  doctrine  are  logically  possible ;  for  schemes 
that  deny  the  trinity  and  incarnation,  the  apostasy  and 
redemption,  are  Deistic,  not  Christian.  Both  scientific 
theology  and  dogmatic  history  evince  that  there  is  no  A r- 
tium  quid  between  Calvinism  and  Arm  in  ian  ism,  and  that 


156  CALVINISM  : 

the  choice  of  an  individual  or  a  denomination,  conse- 
quently, lies  between  one  or  the  other.  Semi-Pelagianism 
was  a  real  mid-point  between  the  tenets  of  Augustine  and 
those  of  Pelagius ;  but  there  is  no  true  intermediate  be- 
tween the  system  of  Calvin  and  that  of  Arminius.  In  the 
history  of  doctrine  there  are  sometimes  semi-quavers,  but 
demi-semi-quavers  never. 

Such  being  the  facts,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church  that  it  retain  the  historical  Cal- 
vinism upon  which  it  was  founded,  and  by  which  it  has 
prospered.  But  it  is  of  even  greater  importance  to  the 
whole  world.  It  is  a  common  remark  of  historians  and 
philosophers,  that  Calvinism  lays  very  deep  the  founda- 
tions of  religious  belief,  of  moral  order,  of  civil  society, 
and  general  intelligence  and  virtue,  and  that  forms  of 
government  and  social  institutions  which  rest  upon  it  are 
invincible,  and  "cannot  but  by  annihilating  die."  Should 
this  type  of  doctrine  and  this  form  of  the  religious  experi- 
ence disappear,  Christendom  would  lose  its  balance-wheel. 
For  it  is  no  disparagement  of  the  energy  of  evangelical 
Protestantism  of  all  varieties,  in  the  defence  of  the  com- 
mon faith,  and  the  war  upon  the  common  unbelief,  to  say 
that  the  Genevan  theologjr  is  always  in  the  front  whenever 
a  fearless  position  has  to  be  taken  in  behalf  of  an  unpopu- 
lar but  revealed  truth ;  whenever  the  Christian  herald 
must  announce  the  solemn  alternatives  of  salvation  and 
perdition  to  a  sensuous,  a  pleasure-loving,  and  an  irritable 
generation  ;  whenever,  in  short,  the  stern  and  severe  work 
of  the  perpetual  campaign  on  earth  against  moral  evil  has 
to  be  done.  The  best  interests  of  the  Christian  religion 
and  Church  require  the  continual  existence  and  influence 
of  that  comprehensive  and  self-consistent  creed  which 
Augustine  formulated  out  of  Scripture,  and  Calvin  re- 
affirmed and  re-enforced.     Evangelical  Arminians  who  do 


PUKE    AND    MIXED  157 

not  adopt  it  feel  its  influence,  praying  it  in  their  prayers 
and  singing  it  in  their  hymns ;  and  Rationalists  of  all 
grades  while  recoiling  from  it  acknowledge  its  massiveness 
and  strength.  It  may,  therefore,  be  confidently  expected 
that  whatever  be  the  fortunes  of  a  particular  Church,  or 
the  tendencies  of  a  particular  time,  this  form  of  doctrine 
will  perpetually  survive  in  Christendom  like  the  Script- 
ures out  of  which  it  was  derived. 


158  CALVINISM  : 


XV. 

DENOMINATIONAL  HONESTY  AND  HONOR 

Honesty  is  as  important  in  theology  as  in  trade  and 
commerce,  in  a  religions  denomination  as  in  a  political 
party.  Denominational  honesty  consists,  first,  in  a  clear 
unambiguous  statement  by  a  Church  of  its  doctrinal  be- 
lief ;  and,  second,  in  an  unequivocal  and  sincere  adoption 
of  it  by  its  members.  Both  are  requisite.  If  a  particular 
denomination  makes  a  loose  statement  of  its  belief  which 
is  capable  of  being  construed  in  more  than  one  sense,  it 
is  so  far  dishonest.  If  the  creed  of  the  denomination  is 
well-drawn  and  plain,  bnt  the  membership  subscribe  to  it 
with  mental  reservation  and  insincerity,  the  denomination 
is  dishonest.  Honesty  and  sincerity  are  founded  in  clear 
conviction,  and  clear  conviction  is  founded  in  the  knowl- 
edge and  acknowledgment  of  the  truth.  Heresy  is  a  sin, 
and  is  classed  by  St.  Paul  among  the  "  works  of  the 
flesh,"  along  with  "adultery,  idolatry,  murder,  envy,  and 
hatred,"  which  exclude  from  the  kingdom  of  God  (Gal. 
5  :  19-21).  Bnt  heresy  is  not  so  great  a  sin  as  dishonesty. 
There  may  be  honest  heresy,  bnt  not  honest  dishonesty. 
A  heretic  who  acknowledges  that  he  is  such,  is  a  better 
man  than  he  who  pretends  to  be  orthodox  while  subscrib- 
ing to  a  creed  which  he  dislikes,  and  which  he  saps  under 
pretence  of  improving  it  and  adapting  it  to  the  times. 
The  honest  heretic  leaves  the  Church  with  which  he  no 
longer  agrees;  but  the  insincere  subscriber  remains  within 
it  in  order  to  carry  out  his  plan  of  demoralization. 


PURE    AND    MIXED  159 

The  recent  discussions  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  have 
disclosed  a  difference  of  sentiment  respecting  the  value  of 
denominational  honesty.  Some  of  the  secular  newspapers 
charge  intolerance  and  persecution  upon  Presbyterians, 
when  departures  from  the  church  creed  are  made  the  sub- 
ject of  judicial  inquiry,  and  when  individuals  are  required 
to  conform  their  teaching  from  the  pulpit  or  the  chair  to 
the  denominational  standards.  In  this  way  a  part  of  the 
public  press  is  conniving  at  denominational  dishonesty.  It 
would  permit  church  officers  to  subscribe  to  a  creed  and 
derive  the  benefit  of  subscription  in  the  form  of  reputation 
or  emolument,  while  working  against  it.  The  creed  of 
a  Church  is  a  solemn  contract  between  church-members  ; 
even  more  so  than  the  platform  of  a  political  party  is  be- 
tween politicians.  The  immorality  of  violating  a  contract, 
a  portion  of  the  press  does  not  seem  to  perceive  when  a 
religious  denomination  is  concerned;  but  when  apolitical 
party  is  the  body  to  be  affected  by  the  breach  of  a  pledge, 
none  are  sharper  to  see  and  none  are  more  vehement  to 
denounce  the  double-dealing.  Should  a  faction  arise 
within  the  Republican  party,  for  example,  and  endeavor 
to  alter  the  platform  while  still  retaining  the  offices  and 
salaries  which  they  had  secured  by  professing  entire  al- 
legiance to  the  party,  and  promising  to  adopt  the  funda- 
mental principles  upon  which  it  was  founded  and  by 
which  it  is  distinguished  from  the  Democratic  and  other 
political  parties,  the  charge  of  political  dishonesty  would 
ring  through  the  whole  rank  and  file  of  Republicanism. 
And  when  in  the  exercise  of  party  discipline  such  faction- 
ists  are  turned  out  of  office,  and  perhaps  expelled  from 
the  political  organization,  if  the  cry  of  political  heresy- 
hunting  and  persecution  should  be  raised,  the  only  answer 
vouchsafed  by  the  Republican  press  would  be  that  of 
scorn.     When  political  dishonesty  would  claim  toleration 


160  CALVINISM  : 

under  cover  of  more  "  liberal "  politics  than  the  party  is 
favoring,  and  would  keep  hold  on  party  emoluments 
while  advocating  different  sentiments  from  those  of  the 
mass  of  the  party,  it  is  curtly  told  that  no  one  is  com- 
pelled to  join  the  Republican  party  or  to  remain  in  it,  but 
that  if  a  person  does  join  it  or  remain  in  it,  he  must 
strictly  adopt  the  party  creed  and  make  no  attempts, 
secret  or  open,  to  alter  it.  That  a  Republican  creed  is  for 
Republicans  and  no  others,  seems  to  be  agreed  on  all 
sides ;  but  that  a  Calvinistic  creed  is  for  Calvinists  and 
no  others,  seems  to  be  doubted  by  some. 

The  advocates  of  this  view  of  a  church  creed  and  of 
creed  subscription  defend  it  upon  the  ground  that  it  is 
proper  to  introduce  improvements  into  a  denominational 
creed  ;  that  the  progress  in  physics  and  the  spirit  of  the 
age  require  new  statements  of  ethics  and  religion  ;  and 
that  this  justifies  the  rise  within  a  denomination  of  a  party 
to  make  them,  and  requires  that  the  denomination  quietly 
look  on  and  see  it  done.  This  means,  for  illustration,  that 
a  Church  adopting  the  historical  eschatology  is  bound  to 
allow  such  of  its  members  as  think  restorationism  is  an 
improvement,  to  attempt  the  introduction  of  it  into  the 
articles  of  faith  ;  or  that  a  Church  adopting  the  Wesleyan 
Arminianism  is  obligated  to  let  any  of  its  members  who 
think  unconditional  election  preferable  to  conditional,  en- 
deavor to  Calvinize  it  by  introducing  this  tenet.  But 
should  a  corresponding  liberty  be  demanded  in  the  polit- 
ical sphere,  it  would  meet  with  no  favor.  If  in  the  heart 
of  the  Democratic  party  a  school  should  arise  who  should 
claim  the  right,  while  still  remaining  in  the  party,  to  con- 
vert the  body  to  Republican  principles  and  measures,  it 
would  be  told  that  the  proper  place  for  such  a  project  is 
outside  of  Democracy,  not  within  it.  The  right  of  the 
school  to  its  own  opinions  would  not  be  disputed,  but  the 


PURE   AND    MIXED  161 

right  to  maintain  and  spread  them  with  the  funds  and  in- 
fluence of  the  Democratic  party  would  be  denied.  Demo- 
crats to  a  man  would  employ  Luther's  illustration  in  a  sim- 
ilar instance :  "  "We  cannot  prevent  the  birds  from  flying 
over  our  heads,  but  we  can  prevent  them  from  making 
their  nests  in  our  hair."  They  would  say  to  the  malecon- 
tents,  "We  cannot  prevent  you  from  having  your  own 
peculiar  views  and  do  not  desire  to,  but  you  have  no  right 
to  ventilate  them  in  our  organization."  Should  the  offi- 
cers of  the  New  York  custom-house  or  post-office  insist 
upon  employing  the  salaries  of  these  large  institutions  in 
transforming  the  politics  of  the  party  that  placed  them 
there,  no  cry  of  "  persecution  "  would  deter  the  party  from 
immediately  cashiering  the  whole  set.  And  yet  some  of 
the  secular  press,  and  some  also  of  the  religious,  contend 
that  it  is  proper  for  subscribers  to  the  Westminster  Con- 
fession to  attempt  a  radical  alteration  of  the  denomination- 
al theology  from  within  the  denomination,  and  that  it  is 
suppressing  free  inquiry  and  the  right  of  private  judg- 
ment when  seven-eighths  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  rep- 
resented in  its  highest  court,  put  a  veto  upon  such  an  at- 
tempt. 

In  such  ecclesiastical  action  there  is  no  denial  of  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  and  of  free  inquiry  into  any 
system  of  doctrine  whatever  ;  only,  it  is  claimed  that  those 
who  dissent  from  the  accepted  creed  of  the  denomination, 
if  they  are  a  minority,  must  go  outside  of  it  if  they  wish 
to  construct  a  new  scheme.  The  satisfied  majority  have 
the  right  of  free  inquiry  and  private  judgment  as  well  as 
the  dissatisfied  minority,  and  in  the  exercise  of  it  stand  by 
the  creed  as  it  is.  Consequently,  if  discontent  with  the  de- 
nominational standard  arises  in  the  minds  of  some,  the 
proper  place  for  their  experiments  in  theologizing  is  with- 
in a  new  organization,  and  not  in  the  old  one  which  does 
11 


162  CALVINISM  : 

not  like  their  experiments.  For  this  reason,  from  time 
immemorial,  a  religious  denomination  has  always  claimed 
the  right  to  expel  persons  who  are  heretics  as  judged  by 
the  denominational  creed.  Only  in  this  way  can  a  denom- 
ination live  and  prosper.  To  throw  down  its  doctrinal 
limits  and  convert  itself  into  an  nn fenced  common  for  all 
varieties  of  belief  to  ramble  over,  would  not  be  useful 
either  to  society  or  religion. 

But  here  the  question  arises,  Who  is  to  interpret  the 
church  creed,  and  say  whether  a  proposed  scheme  of  doc- 
trine agrees  with  it,  or  contradicts  it  ?  Who  is  to  say 
what  is  heresy  from  the  stand-point  of  the  denominational 
system  ?  Certainly  the  denomination,  and  not  the  indi- 
vidual or  school  which  is  charged  with  heresy.  This  is  a 
point  of  great  importance.     For  those  who  are  charged 

Kwith  heterodoxy  commonlj'  define  orthodoxy  in  their  own 
wa}r,  and  claim  not  to  have  departed  from  what  they  re- 
gard as  the  essentials  of  the  denominational  system.  The 
Arminian  party  in  the  Dort  controversy  contended  that 
their  modifications  of  doctrine  were  moderate  and  not  an- 
tagonistic to  the  Reformed  creeds.  The  Semi-Arians  in 
the  English  Church  asserted  that  their  view  of  the  Trin- 
ity did  not  differ  essentially  from  that  of  the  Nicene 
fathers.  In  each  of  these  instances,  the  accused  party 
complained  that  their  statements  were  misapprehended  by 
their  opponents,  and  contended  that  the  Church  was  mis- 
taken in  supposing  that  they  could  not  be  harmonized 
with  the  ancestral  faith.  The  same  assertion  of  being 
misunderstood  and  the  same  claim  to  be  orthodox,  marks 
the  existing  trial  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Now  in  determining  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
phraseology  in  a  proposed  alteration  of  the  denominational 
creed,  and  what  will  be  the  natural  influence  of  it  if  it  is 
allowed  to  be  taught,  it  is  plain  that  it  is  for  the  denomi- 


PURE  AND   MIXED  JG.'! 

nation  to  decide.  In  case  of  a  difference  m  under- 
standing and  interpreting  a  written  document  containing 
proposed  changes  in  the  church  creed,  the  rule  of  the 
common  law  applies,  that  the  accused  party  cannot  be  the 
final  judge  of  the  meaning  and  tendency  of  his  own  docu- 
ment, but  that  the  court  must  be.  And  the  denomination 
is  the  court.  There  is  no  hardship  or  unfairness  in  this. 
A  denominational  judgment  is  very  certain  to  be  equi- 
table, be  it  in  Church  or  State.  The  history  of  politics 
shows  that  the  decisions  of  the  great  political  parties  re- 
specting the  real  meaning  of  their  platforms,  and  the 
conformity  of  individuals  with  them,  have  generally  been 
correct.  And  the  history  of  religion  also  shows  that  the 
judgments  of  the  great  ecclesiastical  bodies  respecting  the 
teachings  of  their  standards,  and  the  agreement  or  disagree- 
ment of  particular  schools  of  theology  with  them,  have 
been  accurate.  Those  individuals  and  parties  who  have 
been  declared  to  be  heterodox,  politically  or  theologically, 
by  the  deliberate  vote  of  the  body  to  which  they  belonged, 
have  generally  been  so.  It  is  rare  that  the  majority  has 
been  in  error,  and  the  minority  in  the  right. 

Denominational  honesty  is  closely  connected  with  de- 
nominational honor.  Those  churches  which  have  been 
the  most  frank  in  announcing  their  creed,  and  the  most 
strict  in  insisting  upon  an  honest  interpretation  and  adop- 
tion of  it  by  their  membership,  have  been  characterized 
by  a  scrupulous  regard  for  the  rights  of  other  churches. 
Being  satisfied  with  their  own  doctrinal  position,  and  con- 
fident of  the  truth  of  their  articles  of  faith,  they  have  not 
invaded  other  denominations  in  order  t<>  alter  their  creed 
or  to  obtain  their  prestige.  In  this  respect,  the  Calvinists 
of  Christendom  compare  favorably  with  some  of  their  op- 
ponents who  charge  them  with  illiberality  and  bigotry. 
It  is  true  that  in  the  times  when  the  union  of  Church  and 


164  CALVINISM  :     PURE   AND   MIXED 

State  was  universal,  and  the  spread  of  any  other  religion 
but  that  of  the  State  was  regarded  as  menacing  to  the 
political  weal,  Calvinists  like  all  other  religious  parties 
endeavored  to  suppress  all  creeds  but  tin,  established. 
But  they  were  ever  in  the  van  for  the  separation  of 
Church  and  State,  and  for  the  religious  toleration  which 
naturally  accompanies  this.  And  ever  since  religious 
toleration  has  become  the  principle  of  Christendom,  and 
the  Protestant  right  of  private  judgment  has  become 
dominant,  Calvinism  has  not  been  intolerant,  or  disposed 
to  interfere  with  the  creeds,  institutions,  and  emoluments 
of  other  churches.  It  sets  a  good  example  in  this  respect. 
There  is  no  instance  upon  record,  that  we  remember,  in 
which  Calvinists  have  secretly  tampered  with  the  creed  of 
another  ecclesiastical  body,  and  endeavored  to  seduce  its 
membership  from  their  loyalty  to  the  articles  of  belief 
publicly  adopted  by  them.  From  their  own  open  and  de- 
clared Calvinistic  position,  they  have  of  course  criticised 
and  opposed  other  creeds,  because  they  believed  them  to 
be  more  or  less  erroneous,  but  they  have  never  adopted 
the  plan  of  creeping  into  another  denomination  by  sub- 
scribing to  its  articles,  and  then  from  that  position  en- 
deavoring to  revolutionize  the  body  which  it  professed  to 
join  in  good  faith.  No  part  of  Christendom  has  been 
more  free  from  insincerity  and  dissimulation  than  the 
Calvinistic  churches. 


Pam^'Jj 


Date  Due 

'•. 

1 

\1R  Q     '53 

,  ii  nwrttornil 

^^^■■■■■(■•w 

fiACULtt 

"" "***^^^^ 

M 

/Q-«2 

/' 

^ r-*" 

f 



